As discussed on the ideological conflicts page, science emerged in the 16th century, initially not as an alternative to religion, but as a means of trying to better comprehend the biophysical world. Yet, over time, when scientific observations and knowledge clashed with religious stories of how the world was created and “worked”, notably about whether the Earth was the centre of the universe, the realms of science and religion began to drift apart.[1] Increasingly, science became the realm of empirical observation and research, while religions, gradually and often grudgingly, retreated to the normative realm, focusing on how God expected humans to behave, respecting His laws. Although not all religious believers accepted this retreat, and some continued to hold onto biblical interpretations of how the biophysical world was created and has evolved (notably, Creationism in the United States), de facto, the scientific view of the world became the basis for the development of modern societies. Increasingly, the continuous development of science and technology was regarded as the key towards progress in all areas of life and society (including production and consumption, the standard of living, communication and travel, health care, education, sports and entertainment). It is now common for governments to argue that policies are (or should be) “evidence-based”, meaning backed up by scientific views on how the world works.
Clearly, there is much scope for debate about the extent to which the development of science and technology, and its applications in virtually all realms of life in modern societies, has led to “progress” and/or to the generation of many undesirable socio-cultural, environmental, political, and other effects. Many people will agree that these developments and applications have had both positive and negative effects, but disagree about which are more important. Such assessments and discussions are heavily influenced by one’s values as well as knowledge. On this front, it is often argued that science and scientists cannot, should not, and do not take positions (but remain objective), as it is up to societies or governments to make judgements. From this perspective, scientists risk compromising their credibility and standing if they take a (political) stance on how their research or findings should be interpreted. This stance, I argue, is misguided and rooted in a view of science that is untenable.
Is there a scientific worldview?
When asked whether there is a scientific worldview, most scientists will probably deny that this is the case. Science is commonly depicted as a “value-free” method for generating better knowledge and understanding of the world, as it is. Scientific research involves (unbiased) observation of reality, collecting data and facts that provide the basis for testing hypotheses aimed at explaining how the world works, independent of what scientists and non-scientists believe. It does not matter if these hypotheses themselves are derived from observation (inductively), from already existing knowledge claims or ideas (deductively), or based on intuition. The important thing is to assess to what extent these claims are backed up by the collected data so that they can be said to be “evidence-based”. People may not like the resulting picture of “how the world works”, but this does not mean that it is any less real or valid. Whether the findings of science are “good” or “bad” is a question that goes beyond science, even if scientists are likely to have their own opinions and disagree on this point. Thus, science itself is not based on a worldview. Scientists have their own personal worldviews, values, and ideologies, but they must keep these at bay when conducting science.
This view of science is flawed for three main reasons. First, science is based on a particular view of the world, even though this view is implicit and not widely recognised. Second, even though scientists, by using the scientific method, aim to be “objective” or “value-free”, they are not and cannot be. Third, science is conducted in a societal context that influences or even determines what science is used for (its goals, objectives, and applications).
Scientific ontology
First, the scientific approach to analysing reality is itself based on broad (ontological) assumptions and beliefs about how the world works. From a traditional scientific perspective, reality (including nature) is like a machine, the workings of which can be understood by studying the parts and then by putting together the knowledge gained about the parts. As reality is big and complex, we cannot but focus on small areas and a limited range of variables, and study these in isolation, assuming everything else stays the same (ceteris paribus), in the expectation or hope that the (tentative) knowledge gained will fit together with the knowledge gained of other areas into a bigger picture. This reductionist approach views reality as an assemblage of parts that can be understood by combining the knowledge gained about these parts. This mechanistic view of the world (as a machine) which arose with the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries (based on the ideas of Francis Bacon, René Descartes, and others), also created a duality between the biophysical world (nature; matter) and humans (mind; observation), assigning the latter a position separate from and above nature.[2]
That this view of nature as a machine is flawed has been recognised increasingly within the world of science itself. From around 1970, the notion of systems theory (thinking and philosophy) was developed to give expression to the idea that reality was an interconnected whole.[3] Systems thinking seemed particularly relevant to efforts aimed at understanding the biophysical and environmental issues that had increasingly come to the fore from the 1960s, providing the basis for the analysis of the Limits to Growth scenarios developed by the Club of Rome.[4] However, it was also hailed as a new development in scientific thinking and understanding, bridging the two worlds of the “hard” and the “soft” (social) sciences, marking a shift toward a new paradigm.[5] Even the social sciences have developed their own versions of systems theory, aimed at making sense of how social and political systems function.[6] A systems approach also lent itself particularly well to understanding and modelling highly complex phenomena, such as the weather, climate, ecosystems, and the Earth system, all of which involve a high number of interacting variables that had, until then, been studied mainly by separate disciplines.
Scientists have played a key role in advancing models for integrated or holistic environmental management under various headings or labels, including ecosystem management [7], integrated environmental management [8], adaptive management [9] and holistic resource management.[10] These visions or frameworks, apart from making the idea of an integrated approach to environmental issues more specific, have been applied, albeit experimentally, at the local or regional level, involving environmental professionals and practitioners, local communities, and governments. While these frameworks and experiments have been and should be assessed critically, notably because of their heavy reliance on experts and their sometimes a-political nature,[11] they did at least constitute steps towards a more integrated approach to environmental issues based not only on scientific knowledge and input but also on a recognition of the role of values and the importance of public participation in the decision- and policy-making processes. At the national level, such frameworks and integrated approaches have been less forthcoming and less successful, especially in the United States.[12]
However, even if a systems view of the world were to be adopted by all scientists for all science, this does not necessarily overcome the inevitable limitations on human efforts to understand reality. For one, the all-encompassing nature of reality will always make it necessary to focus on particular areas of reality. This is reflected, for instance, in research on ecosystems, which stretch from the local to the global level but are all interconnected. Biophysical systems range from the very small (microbiotic) to individual specimens (animals, including human bodies) to the global and cosmological. Another major division that has hindered scientific efforts is the one between the biophysical and social sciences (the “Two Cultures”). Although some scientists have long tried to bridge the gap between “hard” science and social science, it is highly contestable whether the scientific approach adopted in the former is appropriate and applicable to the latter. As yet, the development of a theory of “everything” seems far beyond the reach of humans. One can speculate about whether artificial intelligence (AI) will, at some stage, come up with such a theory, but, as applications of AI have already shown, it can’t avoid developing knowledge that is built on human inputs, including their limitations and biases.[13]
This does not mean that taking a systems approach to better understand how the world works is not worthwhile. In some areas, these efforts are crucial and have already yielded significant results. For instance, in the area of climate change, models have become increasingly accurate and offer a sound basis for determining the thresholds beyond which highly destabilising processes are likely to occur, posing a serious threat to the natural basis for human and other life. More broadly, scientists have developed a plausible picture of a range of global (biophysical) processes that are affected by human interventions and that have already exceeded the planetary boundaries that are deemed crucial to keeping the global system within a “safe zone” for humans.[14] Even the less sophisticated models on which the Limits to Growth scenarios were based proved to be remarkably accurate, demonstrating their ongoing relevance to future studies.[15] In the United States, although the ecosystem concept and the ecosystem approach have been questioned for their scientific credentials and gaps, as well as their presumed (left) political agenda,[16] the approach has gained widespread acceptance at the local and regional levels.[17]
Nonetheless, the obstacles to adopting a more comprehensive and integrated approach to scientific research based on environmental needs or imperatives remain high, both within science and beyond. In the United States, moves towards integrated environmental research have been hindered by bureaucratic fragmentation and politics, known as “turf battles,” as well as bias and reticence among scientists who fear losing or compromising their professional standing.[18] Most scientific research (especially in non-environmental areas) continues to be conducted in the reductionist and fragmented mould, including in areas like genetics, biotechnology, and product (materials) development. The idea that nature can be controlled by manipulating individual components still dominates in a wide range of scientific applications, such as agriculture, nanotechnology, and the medical field (including medicines and treatments). If anything, the array of specialisations within science has increased with the expansion of knowledge, making it increasingly difficult for any scientist to connect the dots and develop a bigger picture of the reality under study. Not surprisingly, therefore, the idea that scientific endeavour should become more integrated or holistic to create a better understanding of the connections between environmental issues and developments, human actions and interactions, and systems, as a basis for environmental integration, still seems far out of reach.
Value-free science?
Second, even though scientists, by using the scientific method, aim to be “objective” or “value-free”, they are not and cannot. This misconception is based on the idea that science is concerned with analysing and understanding reality “as it is” rather than involving and requiring interpretation and (value) judgements. In this respect, modern scientists often draw a sharp distinction between science on the one hand and religion and ideology on the other. Science allegedly is focused only on facts (phenomena that can be observed). As such, it faces empirical issues (how to observe and analyse reality), but not normative matters. Science came to be characterised and identified by a set of prescriptions, referred to as the scientific method. This method prescribes that research must focus on observable (empirical) and preferably measurable or quantifiable phenomena, and a series of steps that make the research replicable, so that the findings can be verified (confirmed or otherwise). This method enables scientists to develop intersubjective knowledge in the form of a theory that is widely shared among scientists and that offers, for the time being, the most plausible explanation(s) of phenomena.[19] It is important to note that scientists adhering to this approach will never claim that they have found the “truth” or a definitive explanation. All scientific knowledge (theory) is tentative and can be superseded by new knowledge/theory that provides a more plausible and/or encompassing explanation.[20] In general, most scientists are keen to keep their scientifically based knowledge claims separate from their personal beliefs out of fear of undermining their scientific credibility and compromising their objectivity.
Nonetheless, it is contestable to what extent scientists can keep subjective views, values, and interests out of their research. It has been argued that, at every step in the scientific method, scientists can’t avoid having to make decisions that are influenced by their normative views, from the way a research question is phrased and framed, dependent and independent variables are identified and selected, the scale of the research, the part of reality (population) focused on and the boundaries of the research, the construction of hypotheses, the processing and classification of data, and the interpretation of the findings. At all these stages, choices are influenced by contextual values (values outside science),[21] which can include cultural views, organisational values, interests, financial considerations and constraints, and personal values, ambitions or preferences. This does not mean that all scientists are biased in the sense that they deliberately distort research to suit their objectives or those of their paymasters, even though the manipulation of science is a practice that is perhaps more common than is often acknowledged.[22] But it means that all research is framed by choices on matters that are, by themselves, not scientific, and that involve making (value-laden) decisions on what is considered important and desirable. Scientists cannot escape having to make such judgements, even if these are not always made explicit.
Power and control over science and technology
This malleability of science opens the door to the third reason why it is misleading to speak of science as not being influenced or guided by values, worldviews, and ideologies. Science is always conducted in a societal context that influences or even determines what science is used for (its goals, objectives, and applications). Not only are scientists influenced by socio-cultural values, views and biases in their research, but much of what they are doing depends on how scientific activity is being organised, structured, funded, steered, and controlled. The romantic view of science as undertaken by solitary and independent individuals, driven foremost by their own curiosity, has always been a distortion of social and political-economic reality. Even from its very beginnings, scientists have been heavily dependent on financial support. States and industries, including the defence industry, have been major employers of scientists.[23] This has always strongly influenced the kind of research undertaken and the interests that science has served. These days, most science is “technoscience”, funded and controlled by governments and businesses that largely determine the kind of research undertaken and for what purposes (often commercial and political). At the same time, the social, political, ethical, and environmental implications of research are largely ignored, let alone subjected to broad societal scrutiny. Although scientific research and its applications have increasingly become sources of grave concern, they often fail to be properly debated by societies. Despite the power exercised by businesses and governments over the development of science and technology, the impression created is that this development is autonomous and out of anyone’s control.[24] Moreover, this is also depicted as a good thing: the uncontrolled development of science and technology allows creativity to flourish and is the primary source of “progress”. However, what is regarded as “progress” is a values-based question, and simply assuming that scientific and technological development can be equated with progress is another contestable assumption.
Science and progress
Although in the 20th century and the first two decades of the 21st century, the idea of progress in human affairs has been dented by the horrors of two world wars, the holocaust, severe economic crises, growing inequality and persistent social misery, the decline of democracy and, last but not least, the undeniable signs of environmental degradation and unravelling, the modernity paradigm is far from dead. Although the adverse environmental, social, and political effects and implications of technological developments have received growing attention in academic and environmental circles,[25] scientific and technological innovation continues unabated and at a faster rate than ever. The idea that “you can’t stop progress” still holds popular sway and seems to be validated by the continuous stream of ever more sophisticated products and technologies that are put on the market and used in all areas of public and private life. If anything, support for the view that humans can improve their lot, or at least solve their problems, by enhancing their ability to manipulate and control nature has strengthened rather than weakened. This applies, in particular, to one of the areas at the frontier of science and technological development, biotechnology. Touted as a source of solutions for many of humanity’s problems, from global heating, biodiversity decline, threats to food security, all kinds of diseases, pollution, ageing, and even dying, biotechnology heralds nothing less than the promise of total control over the future of humans and the Earth. Furthermore, it is claimed that humans will be greatly assisted in this aim or ideal by the development of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and robotics. Although these ideas and developments raise serious concerns,[26] even some environmental advocates have bought into the argument that nature no longer exists and that relying on science and technology is humanity’s only hope for survival.[27]
However, this continued faith in science and technology as the saviour of humankind and the key to “progress” also continues to ignore the problematic nature of the fundamental assumptions on which this belief is based, as discussed above. The almost daily discovery of unforeseen and unforeseeable problems (“side effects”) of adopting new technologies symptomizes the flaws and limitations of the mechanistic and reductionist view of the world that has dominated and still dominates techno-scientific thinking and practice. The idea that reductionist science and the development of ever-more sophisticated technologies enable humans to control nature, or even substitute and transcend nature, in the pursuit of “progress” or “happiness” and/or to solve all their problems is the ultimate form of hubris. Moreover, it overlooks the ways science and technology have long been utilised to serve political-economic interests, despite their serious adverse social, environmental, and political consequences. The development of science and technology (alongside capitalism and industrialism) may have generated significant material benefits for many people. Still, it has also produced social-psychological effects of debatable value (in terms of mental health and “happiness”, “lifestyles”, and social relations), led to a growing concentration of power and the ability to manipulate people, and to environmental destruction on a massive scale.
This is not to reject science and technology per se, but to emphasise the importance of recognising the flaws and limitations inherent to the reductionist scientific worldview, of taking a much more cautious (precautionary) approach to the development of science and technology, and, most of all, of the need for societies to democratically control this development to serve the long-term and collective values and interests of humanity, including the protection of the biophysical environment on which humans and other life depend.
References
[1] For a fascinating account of this, with Johannes Kepler at the centre, see Koestler, Arthur (1959, Kindle 2014 ed.), The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe. London: Penguin Classics.
[2] Capra, Fritjof (1982, 1983 ed.), The Turning Point. Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. London: HarperCollins (Flamingo), chapter 2; Capra, Fritjof (1997), The Web of Life. A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. London: Flamingo.
[3] Laszlo, Ervin (1973), Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought. New York: Harper & Row; Bertalanffy, Ludwig von (1969), General System Theory; Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: G. Braziller.
[4] Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jörgen Randers, William W. Behrens (1974), The Limits to Growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: New American Library; Meadows, Donella H., et al. (2004), Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company; Meadows, Donella H., et al. (1992), Beyond the Limits. Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future. Post Mills, Vt: Chelsea Green Pub. Co.; Meadows, Donella H. and Diana Wright (2008), Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green Pub.
[5] Capra, Fritjof, The Turning Point. Science, Society, and the Rising Culture; Capra, Fritjof, The Web of Life. A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter; Capra, Fritjof (2002), The Hidden Connections. Integrating the Biological, Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of Life into a Science of Sustainability. New York: Doubleday.
[6] Parsons, Talcott (1971), System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall; Easton, David (1965), A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.
[7] Caldwell, Lynton K. (1970), “The Ecosystem as a Criterion for Public Land Policy”, Natural Resources Journal, Vol . 10, No.2, pp.203-221; Cortner, H. Hanna and Margaret A. Moote (1998), The Politics of Ecosystem Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; Kay, James J. and Eric Schneider (1994), “Embracing Complexity: The Challenge of the Ecosystem Approach”, Alternatives, Vol . 20, No.3, 32-39.
[8] Born, Stephen M. and William C. Sonzogni (1995), “Integrated Environmental Management: Strengthening the Conceptualization”, Environmental Management, Vol. 19, No.2, 167-181; Margerum, Richard D. (1996), Integrated Environmental Management: A Framework for Practice. Armidale: Centre for Water Policy Research of the University of New England; Cairns, John and Todd V. Crawford (1991), Integrated Environmental Management. Chelsea, Mich.: Lewis Publishers. Bührs, Ton (1995), Integrated Environmental Management: Towards a Framework. Canterbury: Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375796516_Integrated_Environmental_Management_Towards_a_Framework
[9] Lee, Kai N. (1993), Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; Berkes, Fikret and Carl Folke (1998), “Linking Social and Ecological Systems for Resilience and Sustainability”, in F. Berkes, et al. (eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1-25.
[10] Savory, Allan (1988), Holistic Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
[11] Cortner, H. Hanna and Margaret A. Moote, The Politics of Ecosystem Management; Freemuth, John (1996), “The Emergence of Ecosystem Management: Reinterpreting the Gospel?”, Society and Natural Resources, Vol.9, No.4, 411-417; Scrase, J. Ivan and William R. Sheate (2002), “Integration and Integrated Approaches to Assessment: What Do They Mean for the Environment?”, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Vol.4, 275-294; Bührs, Ton (2009), Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge. Albany: SUNY Press, 87-92.
[12] Caldwell, Lynton K. (1994), “Disharmony in the Great Lakes Basin: Institutional Jurisdictions Frustrate the Ecosystem Approach”, Alternatives, Vol.20, No.3, 26-31; Funke, Odelia (1993), “Struggling with Integrated Environmental Policy: The EPA Experience”, Policy Studies Review, Vol.12, No.3/4, 137-161; Guruswamy, Lakshman (1989), “Integrating Thoughtways: Re-Opening of the Environmental Mind?”, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol.3, pp.463-537.
[13] Crawford, Kate (2021), Atlas of AI. Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
[14] Folke, Carl (2013), “Respecting Planetary Boundaries and Reconnecting to the Biosphere”, in Assadourian, E. and T. Prugh (eds.), State of the World 2013. Is Sustainability Still Possible? Washington: Island Press, pp.19-27; Rockström, J. et al. (2015), “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity”, Science, Vol.347, No.6223, 736+; Steffen, Will, et al. (2015), “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet”, Science, Vol.347, No.6223, 736+; Steffen, Will, et al. (2011), “How Defining Planetary Boundaries Can Transform Our Approach to Growth”, Solutions Journal, 3, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229069964_How_Defining_Planetary_Boundaries_Can_Transform_Our_Approach_to_Growth_Solutions
[15] Randers, Jorgen (2012, e-book ed.), 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea House Publishing.
[16] Fitzsimmons, Allan K. (1996), “Sound Policy or Smoke and Mirrors: Does Ecosystem Management Make Sense?”, Water Resources Bulletin, Vol.32, No.2, 217-225; Morrissey, Wayne A. (1996), “Science Policy and Federal Ecosystem-Based Management”, Ecological Applications, Vol.6, No.3, 717-720; Reichman, O. J. and H. Ronald Pulliam (1996), “The Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management”, Ecological Applications, Vol.6, No.3, 694-696.
[17] Pavlikakis, G. E. and V. A. Tsihrintzis (2000), “Ecosystem Management: A Review of a New Concept and Methodology”, Water Resources Management, Vol.14, No.4, 257-283; Bengston, David N., et al. (2001), “Attitudes toward Ecosystem Management in the United States, 1992-1998”, Society and Natural Resources, Vol.14, 471-487.
[18] Rycroft, Robert W. (1991), “Environmentalism and Science: Politics and the Pursuit of Knowledge”, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 13, No.2, pp.150-169..
[19] For a good discussion of positive science and its application to political phenomena, see Brecht, Arnold (1959), Political Theory: The Foundations of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[20] Karl Popper went further and argued that scientific research is about aiming to “falsify” previously held or developed knowledge. A theory is only scientific if it can be falsified. Popper, Karl (1935; 2005), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London and New York: Taylor & Francis e-library.
[21] Longino, Helen (1983), “Beyond ‘Bad Science’: Skeptical Reflections on the Value-Freedom of Scientific Inquiry”, Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 8, No.1, 7-17.
[22] Blatant cases of this have been well-documented, for instance, related to research on the effects of smoking, the seriousness of climate change, and other issues. Oreskes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway (2011, e-book ed.), Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London: Bloomsbury Publishing; Klein, Naomi (2014), This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. The Climate. London: Allen Lane, Penguin Books; Michaels, David (2008), Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[23] See Pepper, David (1984), The Roots of Environmentalism. London & New York: Routledge, Chapter 5. Parenti, Michael (1995), Against Empire. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 63-64.
[24] Beck, Ulrich (1992), Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications; Beck, Ulrich (1995), Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press; Winner, Langdon (1989), The Whale and the Reactor. A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
[25] To mention just a few influential authors and publications on this front, see Ellul, Jacques (1964), The Technological Society. New York: Vintage Books; Toffler, Alvin (1971), Future Shock. London: Pan Books; Commoner, Barry, The Closing Circle. New York: Alfred Knopf; Beck, Ulrich (1992), Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity.
[26] Bridle, James (2018), “Slave to the Algorithm. Has Technology Evolved Beyond Our Control?”, The Guardian Weekly, Vol . 199, No.3, 26-29; Fukuyama, Francis (2003), Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. London: Profile Books; Russell, Stuart (2019, e-book ed.), Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Viking.
[27] McKibben, Bill (1990), The End of Nature. London: Penguin Books; Lynas, Mark (2011), The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic. The idea that science and technology are the best or only possible basis for “solving” environmental problems has been advanced most prominently by those who referred to themselves as “ecomodernists”.