The latest collection of essays, ‘This Will Make You Smarter’, edited by John Brockman, in answer to the annual EDGE question, ‘What scientific concept would improve everyone’s cognitive toolkit‘, is jam packed with great pieces. I thought this one, from cosmologist Professor Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University, especially good on both conflict and a contribution to better understanding of how science operates.
For the record, I learned my physics from Commander ‘Jack’ Tarr, and my philosophy of science from my flat mate, later Professor Angus Ross, and by arguing with my drinking buddy physicist Mike Dunn. So don’t count on it: that was long ago and faraway. Though anecdotally, I once was looking at Thomas Kuhn’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ in the University of London bookstore, and Kuhn’s arch rival, Professor Karl Popper came up and stood next to me in the philosophy of science section, looked at what I was reading, and said: ‘Scientific revolutions, my arse’ and stomped off.
Here’s what Lawrence had to say:
The notion of uncertainty is perhaps the least well understood concept in science. In the public parlance, uncertainty is a bad thing, implying a lack of rigor and predictability. The fact that global warming estimates are uncertain, for example, has been used by many to argue against any action at the present time.
In fact, however, uncertainty is a central component of what makes science successful. Being able to quantify uncertainty, and incorporate it into models, is what makes science quantitative, rather than qualitative. Indeed, no number, to measurement, no observable in science is exact. Quoting numbers without attaching an uncertainty to them implies they have, in essence, no meaning.
One of the things that makes uncertainty difficult for members of the public to appreciate is that the significance of uncertainty is relative. Take, for example, the distance between the earth and sun, 149,597,870.7 km. * This seems relatively precise, after all using (six) significant digits means I know the distance to an accuracy of one part in a million or so. However, if the next digit is uncertain, that means the uncertainty in knowing the precise earth-sun distance is larger than the distance between New York and Chicago! (*There was a typo in this number)
Whether or not the quoted number is ‘precise’ therefore depends upon what I am intending to do with it. If I only care about what minute the Sun will rise tomorrow then the number quoted above is fine. If I want to send a satellite to orbit just above the Sun, however, then I would need to know distances more accurately.
This is why uncertainty is so important. Until we can quantify the uncertainty in our statements and our predictions, we have little idea of their power or significance. So too in the public sphere. Public policy performed in the absence of understanding quantitative uncertainties, or even understanding the difficulty of obtaining reliable estimates of uncertainties usually means bad public policy.
This is Larry: