Peter Medawar (19151987), British Nobel Prize-winning immunologist, and graceful writer on general science, famously declared science to be "the art of the soluble".
He went on to say: "Good scientists study the most important problems they think they can solve. It is, after all, their professional business to solve problems not to grapple with them."
There is huge insight in this statement, but there are some problems science alone cannot solve. By science I mean natural science (e.g. chemistry, physics and biology) that studies the natural mechanisms that underpin the material world.
The scientific method of making falsifiable hypotheses to explain the world, and testing them by experiment has been powerful in its own domain and provides us with a reliable map of the physical world. But many important problems are so complex that the best we can hope to do is to grapple with them reasonably successfully. Science is very good at solving convergent problems but cannot easily handle divergent problems. A convergent problem yields steadily to expert analysis, where proposals from various quarters gradually converge to produce a solution.
A divergent problem is one where various expert groups propose solutions that diverge one from the other and eventually, congeal into forms that seem to be opposite to each other. Divergent problems often arise in situations involving interactions between people.
The achievement of manned, powered flight in a heavier-than-air machine was a convergent problem. The solution proceeded through many steps, from attempts to mimic bird flight, through various trial and error attempts, to dynamic and aerodynamic analysis, and culminated in the first powered flight made by the Wright brothers in 1903. The solution has withstood the test of time because it is based on physical laws of the universe. As an example of a divergent problem, consider the optimum method to educate and raise children. The traditional method, used in the past, advocated an atmosphere of discipline and authority in which the children patiently imbibe the wisdom and learning of parents and expert adult teachers.
An alternative modern method, advocated by some, lays emphasis on allowing the child freedom to grow in a natural way, according to basic and subtle laws of development. If we liken the child to a young plant, this will allow the child to develop strong roots and to ingest nutrients as needed.
Both approaches to education have logic and one could pick and exclusively apply either. But, if you exclusively apply the first method you imprison the child, and, if you exclusively apply the second method you create chaos. Both approaches seem contradictory, but both are necessary as every parent and teacher knows. Applying both means exposing the child to constant pushing and pulling. What prevents the process from becoming unbearably tense?
Some of the factors identified by child psychology as being necessary for squaring the circle include building the child's confidence and self-esteem and assuring the child that he/she is loved. But love, for example, is not easily defined and measured by natural science.
The quest for the ideal political system poses another divergent problem. Rational analysis has produced several answers, some of them polar opposites of each other, e.g. communism and laissez-faire capitalism. A rigid application of either system will fail, but modifications of either, tempered by wisdom, can work more or less successfully.
Science works in the Cartesian model, after Rene Descartes (1596-1650) the French philosopher. Descartes was interested in how to accumulate certain knowledge about the world and so he advised: "Deal only with ideas that are distinct, precise and certain beyond any reasonable doubt; therefore, rely on geometry, mathematics, quantification, measurement and exact observations."
NATURAL science has done this and has made wonderful progress. As a result we now have an adequate theory to explain how the world began, how it is developing, how life probably began on earth and how it has evolved into its myriad forms. And much more.
Natural science achieves its power by eliminating factors that cannot be controlled, or at least accurately measured. In other words, by studying isolated systems that pose convergent problems. But, when you study open complex systems involving self-conscious human beings, you encounter divergent problems beyond the power of the Cartesian model alone to solve.
Psychology and sociology must continually struggle with enormously complex problems. These disciplines use scientific approaches and have developed sophisticated tools of analysis. Implementing evidence-based approaches to solving complex social problems can, at times, also depend on the aid of wisdom. For example, programmes advocated by an Institute for Peace Studies, designed to bring harmony to a world trouble spot, will depend on the protagonists developing and maintaining the wisdom of compromise.
Scientific method is very powerful but alone it cannot solve all our problems. Some problems are so complex and difficult they can only be successfully confronted by all the human powers we can muster.
(William Reville is a senior lecturer in Biochemistry and UCC Director of Microscopy)