Stuart Firestein: "Ignorance: How It Drives Science"
“Knowledge is a big subject. Ignorance is bigger...and it is more interesting.” These are the words of neuroscientist Stuart Firestein, the chair of Columbia University’s biology department. Firestein claims that exploring the unknown is the true engine of science, and says ignorance helps scientists concentrate their research. He compares science to searching for a black cat in a dark room, even though the cat may or may not be in there. Firestein's laboratory investigates the mysteries of the sense of smell and its relation to other brain functions. A discussion of the scientific benefits of ignorance.
Guests
chairman of the Department of Biology at Columbia University, professor of neuroscience.
Related Items
Program Highlights
It's commonly believed the quest for knowledge is behind scientific research, but Columbia University neuroscientist Stuart Firestein says we get more from ignorance. In his new book, “Ignorance: How It Drives Science,” Firestein argues that pursuing research based on what we don’t know is more valuable than building on what we do know.
Thoughtful Ignorance
Firestein said most people believe ignorance precedes knowledge, but, in science, ignorance follows knowledge. Knowledge enables scientists to propose and pursue interesting questions about data that sometimes don’t exist or fully make sense yet. “I use that term purposely to be a little provocative. But I don't mean stupidity. I don't mean dumb. I don't mean a callow indifference to facts or data or any of that,” Firestein said. Instead, thoughtful ignorance looks at gaps in a community’s understanding and seeks to resolve them.
The Scientific Method Was A Mistake
The scientific method was a huge mistake, according to Firestein. He said nobody actually follows the precise approach to experimentation that is taught in many high schools outside of the classroom, and that forming a hypothesis before collecting data can be dangerous. “The trouble with a hypothesis is it's your own best idea about how something works. And, you know, we all like our ideas so we get invested in them in little ways and then we get invested in them in big ways, and pretty soon I think you wind up with a bias in the way you look at the data,” Firestein said. There is an overemphasis on facts and data, even though they can be the most unreliable part of research. “I think science and medicine has set it up for the public to expect us to expound facts, to know things. And we do know things, but we don't know them perfectly and we don't know them forever,” Firestein said.
Chasing A Black Cat In A Dark Room
Firestein compared science to the proverb about looking for a black cat: “It's very difficult to find a black cat in a dark room especially when there's no cat, which seems to me to be the perfect description of how we do science.” He said science is dotted with black rooms in which there are no black cats, and that scientists move to another dark room as soon as someone flips on the light switch. He said scientific research is similar to a buying a puzzle without a guaranteed solution.
Finding A Cure for Cancer
Scientists have made little progress in finding a cure for cancer, despite declaring a war on it decades ago. Firestein said he wondered whether scientists are forming the wrong questions. “It's just turned out to be a far more difficult problem than we thought it was, but we've learned a vast amount about the problem,” Firestein said. But he said the efforts haven’t been wasted. Many important discoveries have been made during cancer research, such as how cells work and advances in developmental biology and immunology.
Asking Specific Questions
Firestein avoids big questions such as how the universe began or what is consciousness in favor of specific questions, such as how the sense of smell works. For example, he is researching how the brain recognizes a rose, which is made up of a dozen different chemicals, as one unified smell. Firestein said scientists need to ask themselves key questions such as, “What will happen if you don't know this, if you never get to know it? What will happen when you do? Then where will you go?” He calls these types of experiments “case histories in ignorance.”
You can read the full transcript here.
Read An Excerpt
Reprinted from IGNORANCE: How It Drives Science by Stuart Firestein with permission from Oxford University Press, Inc. Copyright © 2012 by Stuart Firestein.


Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
0.) Someone, admittedly someone who didn't care about the fine points of Catholic doctrine, quipped that he were more powerful than the Pope, since he had the power to be wrong.
1.) I am reminded of the story of Fermi, who supposedly once told a graduate student, 'This idea isn't even wrong.'
2.) Some people are not constitutionally suited to ignorance: they need certainty of one sort or another, truths which might be invalidated by the facts are not good enough for them, and prefer a convincing narrative to an admission of an absence of knowledge. Maybe the most important thing I learned to say as a physics graduate student was the ability to readily say, 'I don't know' as often as necessary.
Are the lectures at Columbia on-line for the public? This would be an excellent choice for Open Culture.
An appropriate quote from Blaise Pascal, Pensées #327. The world is a good judge of things, for it is in natural ignorance, which is man's true state. The sciences have two extremes which meet. The first is the pure natural ignorance in which all men find themselves at birth. The other extreme is that reached by great intellects, who, having run through all that men can know, find they know nothing, and come back again to that same ignorance from which they set out; but this is a learned ignorance which is conscious of itself. Those between the two, who have departed from natural ignorance and not been able to reach the other, have some smattering of this vain knowledge and pretend to be wise. These trouble the world and are bad judges of everything. The people and the wise constitute the world; these despise it, and are despised. They judge badly of everything, and the world judges rightly of them.
Original French:
Le monde juge bien des choses, car il est dans l’ignorance naturelle qui est le vrai siège de l’homme. Les sciences ont deux extrémités qui se touchent, la première est la pure ignorance naturelle où se trouvent tous les hommes en naissant, l’autre extrémité est celle où arrivent les grandes âmes qui ayant parcouru tout ce que les hommes peuvent savoir trouvent qu’ils ne savent rien et se rencontrent en cette même ignorance d’où ils étaient partis, mais c’est une ignorance savante qui se connaît. Ceux d’entre deux qui sont sortis de l’ignorance naturelle et n’ont pu arriver à l’autre, ont quelque teinture de cette science suffisante, et font les entendus. Ceux-là troublent le monde et jugent mal de tout.
Physics and math are completely different animals from biology. Please ask guest to address these fields, in which changes build on the basic information rather than change it.
With the current news that the Congress' speeches are now at a 7th and 8th grade level, and some of the remarks I hear on C-SPAN on the weekends, then we must be rapidly becoming the most scientifically oriented country in the world.
It feels as though our media, (DR Show excepted), and a host of other institutions only want to fill our heads with fluffy, nonsubstantive propaganda. I have to search hard for good, solid ideas, conversations and even conflicts that alleviate the ignorance and shed light on even the scintilla of truth and enlightenment.
Kate Reed
I would stipulate that if a concept or idea cannot be expressed using a human language, then it is irrelevant or nonexistent.
Followup to your response to my previous query:
Newtonian mechanics was not negated by Einstein, since Newtonian is a subset of Einsteinian and was not proven wrong by Einstein.
As a scientist, when I first heard the description of this book's title and this book's thesis, I was a bit skeptical. However, after having listened to a bit of Professor Firestein's explanation of his views, I find myself in complete agreement with almost everything he says on this subject. His statements are so obvious to me that I can hardly imagine that any of it is controversial.
However, it is clear to me as I listen to Ms. Rehm and the callers, that the public has a very confused idea about what science actually is.
Will science ever be able to prove the existence of God?
Diane asked about why science has not yet found a cure for cancer. One reason is because the War on Cancer cannot be won until we win the battle against lung cancer. A third of all cancer deaths are lung cancer deaths. And lung cancer survival rates have not increased in 40 years - since the war on cancer began. Prevention is crucial. No one should smoke and those who do should quit. BUT, early detection is also key. Most lung cancer deaths today are diagnosed in former smokers or people who never smoked at all. NCI recently determined through the national lung screening trial that low dose CT scans can increase lung cancer survival rates by at least 20% in former heavy smokers over age 55. These findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Yesterday, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article that also validated the benefits of low dose CT screening for lung cancer in high risk populations. If you are a former heavy smoker over age 55, PLEASE get a low dose screening CT scan for lung cancer. It could save your life!
In response to JackieB-
I find this interesting as one of the points that Dr. Firestein makes is that having a hypothesis biases a person towards a particular discovery. I think this is a prime example of where a conclusion should be drawn from data, not where data is assembled to support a conclusion. Science will do so if it becomes evident in the data that such exists, which may or may not occur pending new methods of data collection and experimentation, the so called black cat in a black room, it may or may not exist, and even so, finding it may be impossible.
In response to JackieB-
This question is a good example of the abysmal understanding of the nature of science by the public. I could write a lot more, but I think I probably should not bother.
Does everyone have to write a book these days? This only makes things even more confusing and vague and REALLY doesn't help lay people understand how science works at all.
Anyway, speaking of consciousness, what it is, and if animals experience it too ... here's at least someone that believes strongly that they do:
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/C4/20120504/NEWS02/120504062/...
If you believe dogs feel pain and are conscious you might want to let Wayne State University know.
President:
president@wayne.edu
PR department:
mlockwood@wayne.edu
This expression belongs to Confucius.
This expression belongs to Confucius.
I really loved this interview. Incredibly insightful... actually wrote on it just today!
http://billyymcmahon.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/enlightenment-woes-in-scie...