The starving polar bear photographed in the Svalbard Islands raised more worries about climate change and the fate of species but this was not true, polar bear numbers were and are increasing with the apparent global warming.

Overview

In recent decades, the world has faced what seems to be an escalating series of ecological crises from climate change to a “tipping point” of environmental collapse. For many, the future is just doom and gloom.

Yet is this true? Are polar beer numbers really declining? Can one picture seen around the world give the complete story? Or is this framing reality as a sensational story playing on our emotions? If this topic interests you then you might enjoy this article.

How We Perceive Reality Shapes Our World

Frames are abstract language patterns or concepts linked by presuppositions that allow us to conceptualise opinions, formulate or change our mind on a topic. Frames are thus conceptual representations of reality.

Rational knowledge may be summarised as a structure of sequential frames, linking concepts. Concepts frame reality in such a manner to presuppose certain outcomes thus shaping our worldview. Our world is influenced by our perception of reality. Without careful attention to the assumptions behind language it is easy for communication to be misinterpreted and divisive.

Judgements are based on the perception of reality

A judgement is a frame considered as a statement that is either right or wrong, true or false. For this to be true there must be no error in perception. However, perceptions can be highly distorted. Judgements can be based on a conditional truth, a statement accepted as true due to certain presumptions taken as fact. This implies that an accurate judgment is therefore not possible.

Polarisation of science leads to a judgement, a right or wrong answer. This leads to a framing of the ‘normally accepted science’, or dominant paradigm where certain propositions are taken as fact. This provides a framework for the questions scientists ask and how they are answered where anomalies that do not fit the dominant paradigm are normally dismissed or explained away.

Scientific theories are merely insights which are neither true nor false but provide clarity within certain boundary conditions. Where the boundaries are perceived as true, and theories seen as absolute facts “the science” is dogmatically believed. This dogma is a barrier against open-minded thinking and prevents dialogue. Whether a conscious or unconscious choice, it perpetuates current understanding constraining meaning with preconceived ideas, and therefore prevents progress.

Thoughts are incomplete, The Map, Not the Territory

Scientific progress has shown that older theories, taken as fact that may not be falsified are replaced with newer ones. Instead of presuming one theory was true, and another false they can be considered as insights where we gain new areas of knowledge.

It is important to remember that frames are an abstract approximation of reality, the map, not the territory. Understanding that concepts can be framed in such a manner to presuppose certain outcomes allows us to appreciate the lack of permanence in the framing of science.

Scientists use inference and inductive studies to provide a guidance to define a working supposition. This is a hypothesis, as the great scientist Richard Feynman stated, just a best guess and the start of the rigorous scientific investigative process. A scientific hypothesis is typically a frame that consists of a clear specific statement of the expected relationship between variables. It is poor scientific practice to start research with a general hypothesis. As David Bohm, the eminent Professor of Theoretical Physics stated, “there can be no conclusive experimental proof of the truth or falsity of a general hypothesis.”

The scientific process doesn’t prove; it only disproves. If the empirical investigation does not agree with the hypothesis, then it’s wrong, it is never proven correct. This is why the scientific process identifies the opposite of what you are trying to prove, the null hypothesis. For example, if you want to show that having a pet dog makes you happier, the null hypothesis would be that having a pet dog has no effect on your happiness.

The scientific method needs to validate a mechanism of causation rather than infer just correlation. To replicate the result, it requires agreement with, (or consensus in), the experimental process. This is the replication of the experiment for attaining consistency and verification of results. This is a standard process for agreement in the scientific process. However, it is a false presumption to judge “the science” as an absolute fact, this confuses the abstract map with the real territory.

Imagination Trumps Reality

The political framing of science can influence public discourse and policymaking. A political consensus is used as justification for a particular abstract problem. Political motivations often associate consensus with science. Consensus of “the science” is a logical fallacy based on an argument from authority, it is a faith (based on false presumptions), not a science. It is therefore not rational scientific thought and implies there is a lack of proper evidence; in certain fields it shows a lack of scientific rigour.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is a great metaphor that highlights how reality is shaped by our education and preconceptions. Our conceptual representation of reality is imaginary, this can be far more powerful than reality. Rupert Sheldrake, in his book The Science Delusion (2012), summarises the apparent knowledge of science by the public as Scientism where “the science” is settled whereas in fact conclusions are mere insights. Language and thought are deeply entwined with our cultural conditioning. Most of our basic assumptions and thoughts have been influenced by the whole culture and society. David Bohm discusses this at lengths and highlights the need for an understanding of the presuppositions hidden within the language we use. Neurolinguistic programming, NLP is used in marketing campaigns where propositions are assumed true. NLP, uses presuppositions with so-called “hypnotic language” as powerful persuasion techniques. We can ask different questions when the presuppositions hidden in our language are unveiled. This can lead to new insights and facilitate a paradigm shift in understanding.

Encouraging open-mindedness without judgement

The effect of the framing of science stresses the need for scientists to be aware of their own biases and to engage in dialogue without judgment. The concept of “the map is not the territory” emphasises the point that scientific theories are merely representations of reality and should not be confused with reality itself.

Furthermore, the significance of framing in various contexts, including environmentalism, education, and public health, influence the conclusions drawn. Different frames can lead to different interpretations and outcomes, and therefore a more nuanced understanding of the complexities involved in scientific inquiry is required to ensure impartiality.

Scientific paradigms shape the questions scientists ask and the framing of the problem they use to find answers. It is important to question these paradigms to avoid dogmatic thinking and foster open-mindedness.

Being aware that our imagination can trump reality, there is a need to encourage a more reflective and critical approach to scientific research by all scientists, encouraging them to continuously question their assumptions and to remain open to new insights and perspectives that challenge their current understanding.