Although the respondents were grouped into five age groups, I grouped them further to have fewer age categories. Approximately 85% belonged to Gen Z (aged 1-22 years) and 15% were Millennials (aged 23-39 years). Results indicated that, with increasing age, the respondents tended to define science as “performing an experiment to see what occurs.” They looked at the outcomes and believed that those were within their control and could, therefore, be improved.
About 34% of the respondents were high school students, and about 54% were in college or graduate school; 20% of the respondents were not students. College students, as might be expected, defined science as “performing experiments” and, as they gained more life experience, they looked at science outcomes as something that they could control for improvement. Surprisingly, there was disagreement on the idea that science “delivers groundbreaking health care solutions” or “can lead to a new world with zero global emissions.” There seemed to be distrust of the scientific information given by “subject matter experts,” “scientific organizations,” or “university publications.” There was, however, strong agreement among the respondents that scientific information from the “medical community and doctors” is trustworthy.
What emerges most importantly from this simple mind genomics study are the elements that drive the answer to the question, “What is science?” The study identified two mindsets and ways in which the respondents define science: Mindset 1 (52%) are inner directed and Mindset 2 (48%) are outer directed. These two almost equally populated mindsets are characterized by radically different responses to the question, “What is science?” These differences may come as a surprise to the reader.
Mindset 1, the inner directed, define science as information that originates from performing experiments and understanding the outcomes, with the ability to use the data to improve and, perhaps, to evolve.
Mindset 2, the outer directed, appear to feel that science is not so much about the process and results as it is about their trust in the authority delivering the information. To Mindset 2, the medical community and physicians deliver more trustworthy scientific information than do policy makers and politicians, more than do their family and friends, and more than do educators and professors.
So, What Is Science?
According to the results of the Grunfeld and Belger study, science is defined in two radically different ways by two distinct mindsets. If the two mindsets are looking at the same scientific information, science to Mindset 1 (the inner directed) consists strictly of the results obtained from performed scientific studies. To Mindset 2 (the outer directed), science consists of the information disseminated and interpreted by the authority they trust. If the trusted authority of Mindset 2 were to go by the results only (i.e., behave similarly to Mindset 1), then the two groups would define science in the same way. If the trusted authority of Mindset 2 included other data interpretation not in the results, then the two groups would define science differently and may disagree.
The preponderance of negative news around the world may also indirectly contribute to this disagreement by influencing the behavior of either or both mindsets. Investigators recently confirmed in a 17-country, six-continent experimental study on psychophysiological reactions to real video news that there is indeed a propensity for negativity biases in human behavior. In a 2013 article, I reported that people perceive positive information to be self-serving, biased, and even inaccurate. People believe negative reports more than positive ones because negative reports also aid in their decision to avoid losses.
For example, people know that food, food ingredients, and medications are not absolutely safe. There are risks involved in eating food and taking medications. People use negative reports on these substances to assist them in deciding what the risks of taking those substances might be. Attempts to allay those concerns with persuasive arguments are often difficult and even ineffective. Thus, Mindsets 1 and 2 may see the same study results, and Mindset 1 may remain unchanged in their interpretation of the results. But, if the trusted authority of Mindset 2 were significantly influenced by negative reports, then this group’s interpretation of the study results would be different from that of Mindset 1. As a result, the two group’s definitions of science might conflict.
The negative beliefs that people hold onto reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
“The human understanding is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called “sciences as one would.” For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride, lest his mind should seem to be occupied with things mean and transitory; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections colour and infect the understanding.”
Francis Bacon Novum Organum XLIX. 1620