The modern world is increasingly driven
and dominated by science and engineering, which focuses relentlessly on reality The amazing technologies that
derive from science and engineering are well known: cars, planes, computers, and
iPhones as well as many more devices and capabilities that comprise the world
in which we live. What is less generally well understood are the set of intellectual
commitments, disciplines, and precepts that underlie science and engineering
and technology and make these technologies possible. These well understood
within engineering communities themselves, but people outside such communities
may not comprehend or appreciate these thought processes. Part of the reason
for this blog is to be clear about the thought processes that make modern
science and technology possible and to identify misunderstanding and
misconceptions.
The science and engineering and
worldview is useful for more than simply designing modern technologies and
devices: I contend that this worldview is also useful in and would improve the
world of public policy. However, this contention is not obvious and needs to be
supported and argued. Why might this be so, what evidence supports this
argument, and what examples can be offered?
The world of environment politics
provides an entry point because it is a problem set that spans both the
scientific and policy communities. Global environmental degradation is in many
senses a scientific problem, but the causes behind the degradation are economic
and demographic. In addressing the larger set of political and policy issues,
it is reasonable to ask if there is a place for scientific and engineering
thinking in politics? That is, is political science even possible? If so, why,
and if not, why not, and how are they separate? There is a certain “throat
clearing” quality to such questions, but it still provides a place to begin an
explanation if not a conversation between engineering and politics.
There are multiple ways to think
about this, and many will eventually be explored, but let us start at the
beginning. Physicist Richard Feynman explained in 1964 that there are three steps
to science: (1) guess it, which is a function of theory; (2) compute the
consequences, which is a function of experimentation; and (3) compare computed
results to nature, experiment, experience, or observation. If the results of
the experiment do not agree with the computed results, then the guess or theory
is wrong. It doesn’t matter how important you are, what your name is, from where
you got your degree, or how beautiful your theory it – if your guess doesn’t
agree with experiment, then it’s wrong, and that is the key to science.
While the fruits of science and
engineering obvious to anyone who drives a car, flies in an airplane, or uses a
computer or iPhone, it’s application for the creation and evaluation of policy
is somewhat more fraught with pitfalls and dangers. This becomes especially
when one considers the psychology of policy makers, also called “senior
decision makers.” That is, they want their decisions followed; they do not want
them questioned by engineers even if they have a point. The consequence to this
worldview is that senior decision makers would often rather persist in wrong or
failed policy rather than admit error. The world of science and engineering
does not work this way, but the world of politics and policy does, and this is
a problem that is becoming increasingly costly and untenable. More to follow.
