Understanding science

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Dear Editor,

I am referring to the letter written by Owen S Crosbie, entitled 'Let's focus on big industries', published on February 11, 2012.

While I agree with the general thrust of the letter, I just want to point out one area of disagreement. The statement that economics is "social science, it deals with uncertainties unlike exact sciences" is at best a fallacy. The fallacious part of the statement is the notion that the practice of science (social or natural) is in any way exact.

As I have told my students in my chemistry classes when discussing the scientific method, science by its very nature is inexact, primarily because science involves measurements which are themselves not exact, as they are limited by the level of precision of the instruments and the judgement of the experimenter who is using the instrument to take measurements. And this is in addition to the errors that naturally occur while carrying out experimental procedures.

Now, what the natural sciences have over the social sciences is that in the practice of natural sciences the experimenter has greater control over the variables that may affect the results and thereby minimise, but by no means, eliminate errors. This is therefore more likely to achieve a greater level of certainty with respect to a conclusion.

In the social sciences, with a lesser level of control over variables that may affect the results, one may arrive at a conclusion that is at the very least a possible snapshot representing people's thoughts, feelings and behaviour at the time.

I believe that for Jamaica to achieve its developmental goals of achieving First World status, scientists, especially natural scientists, will have to lead the charge in this endeavour, and this requires us to understand what science is in the first place.

Pete Nicely

pnicely@email.com