Our dilemma with science

What science means

Science is a system that gains, communicates and applies knowledge using recognised methods, and publishes or incorporates results. Science therefore strives to gain knowledge through research and teaching. Science also encompasses the entire spectrum of human knowledge and experience. In a way, this is where our dilemma already lies.

Science has several important characteristics. It works systematically, which means that it describes, explains and predicts phenomena precisely. It also defends knowledge claims rationally, conducts critical discussions, links knowledge, strives for completeness and presents knowledge comprehensibly.

Science uses both rational and empirical methods, which are general or specific depending on the field. These methods serve to test hypotheses and create reliable knowledge.

An important principle of science is the freedom of research and teaching, which is protected as a fundamental right. This freedom enables researchers to work independently and without bias and to gain new insights. In a certain sense, science is therefore also free of preconditions and open as to its results.

Ask the AI (German)

Why trust in science is sometimes at risk

Despite a generally high level, trust in science is at risk in some cases:

• Uncertainties and ambivalences in science: Scientific findings are often associated with uncertainties and open questions. If these are simplified or even distorted in the media, it can lead to a loss of trust.
• Ethical challenges posed by scientific progress: The “triumph of science” also brings dangers such as the exploitation of people and nature. Scientists must live up to their moral responsibility, which can lead to dilemmas.
• Difficulty putting research into practice: In some fields of training it turns out that “scientification” does not automatically lead to greater professionalism. Scientific knowledge is often difficult to transfer into practice.
• Scepticism in parts of the population: In some countries scepticism towards science remains pronounced, even though more positive tendencies are increasingly emerging.
• Dependence on funders: Many people see science’s heavy dependence on funders as a major reason for mistrust.

Can science question itself?

In principle, science can and must question itself – yes. This is also an essential part of the scientific process, because science is geared towards correcting and improving itself. If research results cannot be replicated or errors are discovered, these must be identified and remedied.

Some scientists stress that bias and wrong incentives lead to distorted research results, even if researchers are fundamentally honest. However, the challenges remain great, as financial constraints and structures of positive incentives can hinder science’s self-correction.

At the same time, science also recognises its limits. It cannot have an answer for everything and must admit uncertainties. Science therefore does not claim a definitive explanation for everything.

Allan Savory’s view of science – or the dilemma

Allan Savory is a Zimbabwean livestock farmer and co-founder of the Savory Institute. He is the originator of holistic management, a systems-thinking approach to managing natural resources.

Savory received the Banksia International Award in 2003 and won the Buckminster Fuller Challenge in 2010. Prince Charles called him “a remarkable man”, while the farmer Joel Salatin wrote that history will honour Savory as one of the greatest ecologists of all time.

Text of the video

Allan Savory’s opinion on science • short video, 1:38 min

People talk a lot about science – so, what is science?

People graduate from university with a master’s degree or a doctorate. Then they go into practice and they believe literally nothing unless it is a “peer-reviewed” publication. That is the only thing they accept. And you tell them, let’s observe, let’s think, let’s discuss: they don’t do it. The only question is always: is it a “peer-reviewed” publication or not? That is their idea of “science”. I think that’s pathetic. They went to university as curious young people and leave it brain-dead. They don’t even know what science means. They think it means “peer-reviewed” publications, etc. No! That’s the work of the universities. And if a publication has been “peer-reviewed”, it means that everyone came to the same result – that’s why they approved it. The unintended consequence is that when new knowledge, new scientific insights are gained, they can never be “peer-reviewed”. That means all new advances in science are blocked – even major advances. If you look at the great breakthroughs in science, you find that they almost never come from the centre of the profession. They come from the fringe. The best candle makers in the world could not even imagine electric light. Insights don’t come from inside, they come from outside. Our stupidity will be the death of us.

Our conclusion

With this article we do not want to lecture or discredit anyone. Rather, our intention is to stimulate reflection: are we prepared to solve our many social problems at a different level? Are we prepared to accept that we do not yet know and understand everything? And are the established structures even capable of accompanying us on this learning path?

Take as examples the as yet unexplained moon illusion (German), the Voynich manuscript or neutrinovoltaics.

There are things so phenomenal or new that researching them shakes previous knowledge, or at least means it has to be questioned – from a new level.