Best practice: Show me the evidence

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Demonstrators rally in downtown Los Angeles last month as part of the worldwide March for Science. Photo/AP

RECENTLY there have been "March for Science" rallies across the world, including more than 200 people rallying in Palmerston North.

Why should we care? What is it all about?

To both questions I would respond: "Are you bothered about freedom of speech?"

The usual answer in Western countries is: "Why should I be bothered when we already have freedom of speech?"

But I disagree and, to adapt something somebody famous said, the first victim when freedom of speech is lost is democracy.

Much to my regret, although I listen to many kinds of music, I have never studied it in sufficient depth to understand its structure.

When a musician friend starts talking of time signatures and phrasing, I am lost.

I find Spem In Allium by Thomas Tallis a deeply moving experience but I lack the language to understand how Tallis melded 40 singers into a phonic masterpiece.

I am musically illiterate; I suffer from lack of freedom of speech when talking about music.

When it comes to science I am less at a loss for words, having been mesmerised by the physical sciences since the age of five.

In the intervening years, my brain has marinated in spicy scientific ideas to the point where I have some idea of what I am talking about in the area of physical science (biological science is largely a closed book to me -- too many long words).

I can discuss the ideas of physics and learn from people more knowledgeable than myself. I am scientifically literate.

There is an important difference between music and science.

Frank Gibson.

Without an understanding of music people may have a less full life, but the world will go on; lack of scientific literacy in a population means the members of that population cannot discuss important issues facing their quality of life with any authority.

It is the difference between: "I believe this idea because I am told by those in authority it is correct" and "I believe this idea because I understand the evidence".

A population that is conditioned to accept authority about what it believes is on the slippery slope to accepting dictatorship.

I am not the first to express this opinion -- here is a quote from George Orwell's 1984: "In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak, there is no word for 'Science'.

"The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc (party of the state)."

Orwell went on to tell us how thought control is achieved.

You do not need drugs or science fiction machines -- all you need to do is to progressively remove certain words from everyday use and modify the meaning of others.

As Goebbels knew, an important part of this process can be achieved through the media.

In Orwell's day, this was mainly newspapers and radio, but these days we are surrounded by a constant blast of electronic media.

The Sami peoples of northern Norway, Sweden and Finland have 300 words describing conditions of snow and tracks in snow, making them very literate in describing conditions around them.

One person can precisely describe a place in a few words, allowing the listener to build a mental image and make informed decisions about hunting or living in that area.

They take evidence, form a hypothesis and could put ideas to the test by visiting the area.

If their initial idea is wrong, a visit will give new evidence to modify their thoughts.

Their language allows them to do science.

The Hawaiian language has more than 40 words to describe waves and ocean swell.

This linguistic precision is necessary to practise the science of deep ocean navigation.

So, what has this to do with marching for science and freedom of speech?

The present administration in the United States is keen to prevent free public access to scientific research.

It has removed funding for research that may find evidence contradicting the politically and profit-motivated pronouncements of climate-change deniers and young earthers.

In the short term, this is shocking.

Over time the shock will wear off, scientific language will disappear and we shall see the resulting creeping thought control prophesied by Orwell.

Should we be bothered in New Zealand? Most certainly.

With science and mathematics teachers in short supply across the world and curriculums and examination systems that encourage "fact" regurgitation at the expense of critical thinking, there is a problem.

We see the results of this in totally illogical (illogical is much worse than wrong) explanations of phenomena and acceptance at face value of totally spurious "scientific" news in the media (chem-trails, rogue asteroids, planet X lurking out in the darkness).

Are we losing the language to ask questions and discuss ideas?

What can be done? Marching for science is not enough -- uncritically accepting science without criticism is swapping one blindfold for another.

Science is a mental discipline, not a set of facts. An idea is only as good as the evidence it is based upon, so ask for evidence and more evidence and find out how the evidence was found.

Isaac Newton was not a nice person. Criticise the ideas and evidence, not the scientist, but be wary of motives.

Ask the dumb questions. People do not ask questions because they assume everybody else understands, yet this is rarely true.

Discuss how things work with your children, listen to their ideas and agree or disagree using logic and evidence.

What kids learn from parents is much more important than what they learn at school.

Teach them to ask questions.

Frank Gibson is a semi-retired teacher of mathematics and physics who has lived in the Whanganui region since 1989.