2021 RI KI Y5 Promo P2

2 SectionA You must answer question one. 1 Science and uncertainty go hand in hand. But what happens when misinterpretations of that uncertainty go public? It can cause all sorts of problems. T ake the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, for example. When COVID-19 fi rst came to the United States, many people chose to ignore warmings and failed to engage in proper social distancing. They were likely interpreting uncertainty in data about risk and contraction to mean that the coronavirus wasn't something that needed to be taken seriously. This is a common mistake that people make when they expect certainty from science and fail to appreciate that legitimate science always has uncertainties. But why can't science ever be 100% certain? To understand this, we need to remember that the aim of science is to explain, predict and control natural phenomena. Yet science's so-called 'laws' of nature are merely highly probabilistic claims that can never be proven to be true. This is because such claims are only ever contingent, that is, not necessary. This seems highly unintuitive when we fi rst think about it. After all, the sun has to rise from the east tomorrow, right? It surely cannot be the case that it rises from the west. But unlike mathematical claims like "2+2=4", scienti fi c claims can always be otherwise -a world where the sun rises from the west is unlikely, yes, but there is nothing to stop it from doing so. Perhaps, in this unlikely possible worid, an alien race decides to change the direction of Earth's orbit through some electromagnetic wizardry. On top of this, we need to consider what the Scottish philosopher, David Hume, called the Problem of Induction. We are constrained by the limits of experience - there is only so much that we can experience, even with vast amounts of money spent on scienti fi c research each year to try and expand our ability to observe an increasing number of things in nature. This means that in advancing a scienti fi c claim, we have to infer, from a fi nite number of observations, that this is exactly how Nature works - not just now, not just in the past, but also in the future. But to make such a claim is to essentially claim that the future will resemble the past. And how do we know that the future will resemble the past? Because in the past, the future had resembled the past! This, as philosophers pointed out, is disingenuous. And contrary to popular perception, Science isn't as objective as it's made out to be. Con fi rmation bias, even to the point of making up false data so as to 'prove' one's theory, is unfortunately all too common. Evidence, that so-called objective arbiter that was supposed to help us choose the right theory, actually cannot ful fi l such a function. In fact, we can't even be sure that evidence itself is objective - the very act of observation can be so 'contaminated' by theory that scientists see things that aren't even there! This lack of objectivity also contributes to the uncertainty of S