Ignorance is bliss: why admitting lack of knowledge could be good for science

"We just don't know" might be one of the best phrases in support of the scientific method ever written. But unfortunately it carries an inherent danger: if a STEM professional - or indeed an amateur scientist/citizen scientist - uses the term, it can be used by those wishing to disavow the subject under discussion. Even adding "- yet" to the end of it won't necessarily improve matters; we humans have an unfortunate tendency to rely on gut instinct rather than rational analysis for our world model, hence - well, just about any man-made problem you care to name, now or throughout history.

Even though trust in scientists and the real-world application of their work may have taken an upswing thanks to some rapid vaccine development during the current pandemic, there are many areas of scientifically-gleaned knowledge that are still as unpopular as ever. Incidentally, I wonder whether if it wasn't for much stricter laws in most countries today, we would have seen far more of the quackery that arose during the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic. During this period low-tech 'cures' included gas inhalation, enemas and blood-letting, the former about as safe as last year's suggestion to drink bleach. I've seen very little about alternative cures, no doubt involving crystals, holy water or good old-fashioned prayer, but then I probably don't mix in those sort of circles (and certainly don't have that type of online cookie profile). But while legislation might have prevented alternative pandemic treatments from being advertised as legitimate and effective, it hasn't helped other areas of science that suffer from widespread hostility. 

Partly this is due to the concept - at least in liberal democracies - of free speech and the idea that every thesis must surely have an antithesis worthy of discussion. Spherical planets not your bag, baby? Why not join the Flat Earth Society. It's easy to be glib about this sort of thing, but there are plenty of more serious examples of anti-scientific thinking that show no sign of abating. The key element that disparate groups opposing science seem to have in common is simple; it all comes down to where it disagrees with the world picture they learnt as a child. In most cases this can be reduced even further to just two words: religious doctrine.

This is where a humble approach to cutting-edge research comes in. Humility has rarely been a key characteristic of fictional scientists; Hollywood for example has often depicted (usually male) scientists as somewhere on a crude line between power-crazed megalomaniacs and naive, misguided innocents. The more sensational printed volumes and tv documentaries communicating scientific research to a popular audience likewise frequently eschew ambiguities or dead-ends in favour of this-is-how-it-is approach. Only, quite often, it isn't how it works at all. Doubts and negative results are not only a key element of science, they are a fundamental component; only by discarding failures can the search for an answer to an hypothesis (or if you prefer the description of the brilliant-yet-humble physicist Richard Feynman: a guess) be narrowed down. 

There are plenty of examples where even the most accomplished of scientists have admitted they don't know the answer to something in their area of expertise, such as Sir Isaac Newton being unable to resolve the ultimate cause of gravity. As it was, it took over two centuries for another genius - Albert Einstein - to figure it out. Despite all the research undertaken over the past century or so, the old adage remains as true as ever: good science creates as many new questions as it answers. Key issues today that are unlikely to gain resolution in the next few years - although never say never - include what is the nature of dark energy (and possibly likewise for dark/non-baryonic matter) and what is the ultimate theory behind quantum mechanics? 

Of course, these questions, fascinating though they are, hold little appeal to most people; they are just too esoteric and far removed from everyday existence to be bothered about. So what areas of scientific knowledge or research do non-scientists worry about? As mentioned above, usually it is something that involves faith. This can be broken down into several factors:

1. Disagreement with a key religious text
2. Implication that humans lack an non-corporeal element, such as an immortal soul
3. Removal of mankind as a central component or focal point for the universe 

These obviously relate to some areas of science - from a layman's viewpoint - far more than others. Most non-specialists, even religious fundamentalists, don't appear to have an issue with atomic theory and the periodic table. Instead, cosmology and evolutionary biology are the disciplines likely to raise their ire. Both are not in any sense complete; the amount of questions still being asked is far greater than the answers so far gleaned from research. The former is yet to understand what 96% of the universe is composed of, while the latter is still piecing together the details of the origin and development of life of our planet, from primordial slime up to Donald Trump (so possibly more of a sideways move, then). 

Herein lies the issue: if scientists claim they are 'certain' about the cause of a particular phenomenon or feature of reality, but further research confirms a different theory, then non-scientists are  legitimately able to ask why the new idea is any more final than the previous one? In addition, the word 'theory' is also prone to misinterpretation, implying it is only an idea and not an hypothesis (guess, if you like) that hasn't yet failed any tests thrown at it, be they practical experiments, digital simulations or mathematical constructions. Bill Bryson's best-selling A Short History of Nearly Everything is an example of how science can be done a disservice by material meant to promote it, in that the book treats science as if it were an ever-expanding body of knowledge rather than as a collection of methods that are used to explore answerable questions about life, the universe, and of course, everything.

Perhaps one answer to all this would be for popular science journalism, from books written by professional scientists to short news items, to include elements related to what is not yet known. The simplistic approach that avoids the failures only serves to strengthen the opinion that experts are arrogant believers in their own personal doctrines, as inflexible and uncompromising as holy writ. 

Unfortunately, in efforts to be both concise and easy-to-comprehend, much science communication appears to render the discipline in this manner, avoiding dissension and doubt. In addition, the often wonderful - and yet to be resolved subtleties - of research are neglected. For example, the majority of specialists agree that birds are descended from theropod (i.e. carnivorous) dinosaurs, and yet the primary growth axis on the forelimbs of the two groups differs. This issue has not been satisfactorily answered, but the vast collection of evidence, both from fossils and experimentation, claims it as the most plausible solution to this particular phylogenetics tree. Further research, especially in embryology, may one day find a more complete solution.

Ultimately then, science education would probably benefit from it confirming boundaries of uncertainty, where they exist. This may help allay fears that the discipline wants to impose absolutes about everything; in most areas (the second law of thermodynamics excepted) we are still in the early stages of understanding. This doesn't mean that the Earth may be flat or only six thousand years old, but it does mean that science usually works in small steps, not giant paradigm shifts that offer the final say on an aspect of reality. After all, if scientists already knew everything about a subject, there wouldn't be any need for further research. What a boring world that would be!

Falling off the edge: in search of a flat Earth

It's just possible that future historians will label the 21st century as the Era of Extreme Stupidity. In addition to the 'Big Four' of climate change denial, disbelief in evolution by natural selection, young Earth creationism and the anti-vaxxers, there are groups whose oddball ideas have rather less impact on our ecosystem and ourselves. One segment of people that I place in the same camp as UFO abductees and their probing fixation are believers in a flat Earth.

Although on the surface this - admittedly tiny - percentage of people appear to be more amusing than harmful, their media visibility makes them a microcosm of the appalling state of science education and critical thinking in general. In addition, their belief in an immense, long-running, global conspiracy adds ammunition to those with similar paranoid delusions, such as the moon landing deniers. One example of how intense those beliefs can be (at times there's just a whiff of religious fanaticism), the American inventor and stuntman 'Mad' Mike Hughes was killed recently flying a self-built rocket intended to prove that the Earth is a disc.

I won't bother to describe exactly what the flat Earthers take to be true, except that their current beliefs resemble a description of the late, great Terry Pratchett's fantasy Discworld - albeit without the waterfall around the edge of the disc. For anyone who wants to test the hypothesis themselves rather than rely on authority (the mark of a true scientist) there are plenty of observational methods to try. These include:

1. Viewing the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse
2. Noticing that a sailing ship's mast disappears/reappears on the horizon after/before the hull
3. How certain stars are only visible at particular latitudes

For anyone with a sense of adventure, you can also build a high-altitude balloon or undertake a HAHO skydive to photograph the Earth's curvature - from any point on the planet!

It's easy to suggest that perhaps our brains just aren't up to the task of deciphering the intricacies of a 13.7 billion old universe, but basic experiments and observations made several thousand years ago were enough for Greek scientists to confirm both the shape and size of our planet. So what has changed in the past century or so to turn back the clock, geophysically-speaking?

The modern take on a flat Earth seems to have begun in the late 19th century, with an attempt - similar to contemporary mid-Western creationists - to ignore scientific discoveries that disagree with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. Indeed, the forerunners of today's flat Earthers were anti-science in many respects, also denying that prominent enemy of today's Biblical literalists, evolution by natural selection. However, many of the 21st century' s leading adherents to a disc-shaped Earth have more sympathy and interest in scientific discoveries, even supporting such politically contentious issues as rapid, human-induced, climate change.

This topic is laden with ironies, few greater than the fact that a large proportion of the evidence for global warming is supplied by space agencies such as NASA. The latter has long been claimed by the Flat Earth Society as a leading conspirator and purveyor of faked imagery in the promotion of a spherical earth (yes to all pedants, I know that strictly speaking our planet is an oblate spheroid, not purely spherical).

Today's flat Earth societies follow the typical pseudo-scientific / fringe approach, analysing the latest science theories for material they can cherry pick and cannibalise to support their ideas. In recent years they've even tackled key new developments such as dark energy; in fact, about the only area they are lagging behind in is the incorporation of elements involving quantum mechanics.

But for anyone with an understanding of parsimony or Occam's Razor, the physics for a flat Earth have about as much likelihood as Aristotle's crystalline spheres. It isn't just the special pleading for localised astrophysics (since the other planets are deemed spherical); isn't it obviously absurd that there could be a global conspiracy involving rival nations and potentially hundreds of thousands of people - with no obvious explanation of what the conspirators gain from the deception?

Even for the vast majority of the public with little interest or understanding of the physics, most people considering the flat Earth hypothesis are presumably puzzled by this apparent lack of motivation. In a nutshell, what's in it for the conspirators? Until recently, NASA (nick-named 'Never A Straight Answer,') was the main enemy, but with numerous other nations and private corporations building space vehicles, there is now a plethora of conspiracy partners. Going back half a century to the height of the Cold War why, for example, would the USA and Soviet Union have agreed to conspire? As yet, there hasn't been anything approaching a satisfactory answer; but ask Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Unlike most fringe groups, flat Earthers don't appear to favour other, popular conspiracy theories above scientific evidence. Yet somehow, their ability to support ludicrous ideas whilst denying fundamental observations and the laws of physics in the light of so much material evidence is astonishing.  Of course our species doesn't have a mental architecture geared solely towards rational, methodical thought processes, but the STEM advances that Homo sapiens has made over the millennia prove we are capable of suppressing the chaotic, emotional states we usually associate with young children.

Whether we can transform science education into a cornerstone topic, as daily-relevant as reading, writing and arithmetic, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the quest continues for funding a voyage to find the Antarctic ice wall that prevents the oceans falling over the edge of the world. Monty Python, anyone?