Promoting A Scientific Lifestyle

by : Professor Max Tegmark (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

          I think  the scientific concept  that would most improve everybody's cognitive toolkit is "scientific concept”. 

       Despite spectacular success in research, our global science community has been nothing short of a spectacular failure when it comes to educating the public. Haitians burned twelve witches" in 2010. In the United States, recent polls show that 39 percent consider astrology scientific. If everyone understood the concept of "scientific concept," these percentages would be zero. Moreover, the world would be a better place, since people with a scientific lifestyle, basing their decisions on correct information, maximize their chances of success. By making rational buying and voting decisions, they also strengthen the scientific approach to decision making in companies, organizations, and governments. 

       Why have we scientists failed so miserably ? I think the answers lie mainly in psychology, sociology, and economics. 

       A scientific lifestyle requires a scientific approach to both gathering information and using information, and both have their pit-falls. You're clearly more likely to make the right choice if you're aware of the full spectrum of arguments before making your mind up, yet there are many reasons why people don't get such complete information. Many lack access to it (3 percent of Afghans have access to the Internet, and in a 2010 poll 92 percent didn't know about the 9/11 attacks). Many are too swamped with obligations and distractions to seek it. Many seek information only from sources that confirm their preconceptions. Even for those who  are online and uncensored, the most valuable information can be hard to find, buried in an unscientific media avalanche. 

        Then there's what we do with the information we have. The core of scientific lifestyle  is to change your mind when faced with information that disagrees with your views, avoiding intellectual inertia, yet many of us praise leaders who stubbornly stick to their views as "strong." The great physicist Richard Feynman hailed "distrust of experts" as a cornerstone of science, yet herd mentality and blind faith in authority figures is widespread. Logic forms the basis of scientific reasoning, yet wishful thinking, irrational fears and other cognitive biases often dominate decisions. 

What can we do to promote a scientific lifestyle ?

            The obvious answer is to improve education. In some countries, even the most rudimentary education would be a major improvement (less than half of all Pakistanis can read). By undercutting fundamentalism and intolerance, education would curtail violence and war. 

      However, even countries that offer everybody education can make major improvements. The curriculum should shift from one watered down by consensus and lobbying to skills our century needs, for promoting relationships health, time management, and critical thinking and recognizing propaganda. In the Internet age, my own role as a classroom teacher has changed. I'm no longer needed as a conduit of information, my students can simply download on their own; rather, my key role is inspiring a scientific lifestyle, curiosity, and the desire to learn. 

Now let's get to the most interesting question: How can we really make a scientific lifestyle take root and flourish ? 

        Reasonable people have been making similar arguments for better education since long before I was in diapers, yet instead of improving, education and adherence to a scientific lifestyle are arguably deteriorating in many countries, including the United States. Why ? Clearly because there are powerful forces pushing in the opposite direction, and they are pushing more effectively. 

        So what can we do ? The first thing we scientists need to do is get off our high horses, admit that our persuasive strategies have failed, and develop a better strategy. We have the advantage of having the better arguments, but the antiscientific coalition has the advantage of better funding. 

       To teach people what a scientific concept is and how a scientific lifestyle will improve their lives, we need to go about it scientifically: We need new science advocacy organizations, which use all the same scientific marketing and fund-raising tools as the anti-scientific coalition. We'll need to use many of the tools that make scientists cringe, from ads and lobbying to focus groups that identify the most effective sound bites. 

       We won't need to stoop all the way down to intellectual dishonesty, however. Because in this battle, we have the most powerful weapon of all on our side: the facts.