Chapter 24 
The process of Science
ÒThe binding force of science is its common language 
extending rational thinking across borders, cultures and religions 
to the benefit of all.Ó 
ÐAhmed Zewail, first Arab to win a science Nobel Prize.
Up to this point weÕve made all sorts of proclamations about how the fundamental institutions of our power-based governments are lousy. But anarchy doesnÕt work so well either. If weÕre going to get rid of such previously sacred ideas as leaders and voting, what are we going to replace them with? 
Even before we get into specifics, its worth asking the question ÒHas any non-power based government ever worked?Ó We answer Òprobably not for long for a large populationÓ. We might not have examples of non-power-based governments, but we do have many examples in other parts of our society, of governance processes taking place in the absence of power relationships. Some of them were explored in the Some of Us chapter. What might we learn from them that can teach us lessons in how to redesign government?
Government is a process. We will not find our solutions in Òelecting the right peopleÓ or Òbetter architecture in the capitalÓ. We need examples of winning processes. Exhibit A:
Science operates via consensus
One of the best examples of a community that operates primarily on cooperative consensus is one that your authors know bestÑthe scientific community. Roughly speaking, Science, in one form or another, lies at the core of most of civilizationÕs advances over the last 500 years or so. The revolutions in transportation, communications, information, medicine and numerous others all sprouted from Science. WhatÕs the magic?
Think about it. The scientific community involves hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world, tackling some of humanityÕs biggest problems. They produce life-changing breakthroughs on a regular basis. And with relatively modest expenditures, we might add. 
Surprisingly, most of the organizational structures that business and government claim are necessary to get things done, are absent from science. ThereÕs no President of Science. No Supreme Court, no political parties, no CEOs, no boards of directors, no stockholders, no Pope. No hierarchical organization chart. Very little voting. If youÕve ever hung out with scientists, you know that debates can get heated. So how do these guys handle disagreements? 
Cynics might counter that science indeed has competition and hierarchy, just like business and politics. There is the tenure track for professors, every bit as ranked as the military. ThereÕs competition for research grants, sometimes as cutthroat as marketplace competition. 
But those activities are not what weÕre talking about. Those are not the activities that constitute science itselfÑrather, they are the business and politics of jobs in science, which is why they resemble business and politics in the rest of society. There certainly are occasional instances of scientific fraud and malpractice, trumpeted in the newspapers, but as a whole, by any measure, thereÕs far less avarice and corruption in science than in business and politics.
Science 101
Science is a process for discovering, verifying and disseminating knowledge. Fundamentally, it is the process of using reasoning to discover the truth. It relies on careful documentation, reproducible experiments and reasoning, to derive explanations for a wide variety of phenomena. LetÕs dig a little deeper.
Just as there are no cans in a supermarket labeled simply ÒfoodÓ, weÕve never heard of a college course labeled simply ÒScienceÓ. Science is not simply the sum of individual fields like Biology, Chemistry and Physics. 
Does science work?
Not for all subjects, not all the time, but pretty much yes. Over the long term, the process of Science tends to converge on answers that are useful in modeling phenomena, making more accurate predictions than non-scientific process and, in general helping us lead happier, more productive lives. 
Admittedly, some products produced by Science-guided technology are, um, misguided. ÒSmart bombÓ is an oxymoron. Refrigerators help, but the hole in the ozone they caused doesnÕt. There are a lot of Òtwo steps forward, square root of two steps backÓ, yet we can now cure diseases, ßy thousands of miles in hours and acquire knowledge from all of humanity in seconds, largely do to Science and its spinoffs. 
Generally problems that Science creates are problems Science can solve, given time, funding and freedom for creative minds to explore. Science is not all recluses in white lab coats. 
The social process of Science
The real activity of science, exchanging ideas, takes place when scientists interact socially, in working groups, dinners, and conferences, when the bureaucrats and administrators are out of the room. The beauty of science is that scientists have developed a method of discourse that allows them to cooperate with each other to solve problems, rather than just to compete for money and status based on power.
Anybody can express an idea, from the lowliest student to the most distinguished professor, regardless of status, by submitting a paper (usually anonymously). The idea is evaluated by paper reviewers, who have expertise and interest in the subject matter, but no stake in the outcome of whether or not the paper is accepted. Conference organizers seek a diversity of viewpoints. 
Individual scientists get to make up their own minds about the idea, without coercion. In the best case, other scientists will like your idea, and they will adopt it and build upon it in their own research. They credit the original idea with references in the paper. ThatÕs how ideas get adopted. Not by being blessed by an authority, or approved by a vote.
Scientists resort to competitive processes typically only when thereÕs some sort of scarcity. You will recall from our discussion of evolutionary theory, that scarcity is a legitimate motive for competition. There are only so many speaking slots at a conference, or pages in a journal, so thatÕs when voting or selection by authority takes place. And even so, there are typically feedback mechanisms in those cases, to assure that authority is not abused, or a vote too inßuential.
In science, everybody is assumed to be cooperating to discover scientific truth, rather than working for themselves in order to advocate a position, or chase incentives for personal gain. While complete objectivity is impossible, scientists are expected to make every effort to be objective in their presentation of ideas. It is established as a strong social norm, taught to students as part of their education. By and large, people play along. As a result, discourse in science is markedly different than the discourse that takes place in business and politics. 
There are several roles that scientists play. ThereÕs the experimental scientist collecting data and running experiments. They design an experiment that can objectively determine if a hypothesis is correct, then analyze the results. Unlike most other fields, proving your hypothesis wrong can be every bit as valuable as validating your hypothesis. 
Experimental work is published in narrow focus peer-review journals and conference proceedings. Next, some authors recognize the importance of a collection of work and make it available to a wider audience of scientists via survey papers. Other authors bring the more broadly agreed upon concepts to students via text books. 
The more exciting ideas get published in Scientific American or Popular Science. The occasional breakthrough makes it all the way to daily newspapers. This layered dissemination of knowledge helps attract interdisciplinary ideas that can ultimately enhance the original work with ideas from a larger population.
When you present an idea in science, you have to 
Make a good-faith attempt to present both the reasons for and against the idea. You have to present opposing viewpoints fairly. Your paper will very likely be sent to reviewers with those viewpoints, who have to agree on the fairness of your characterization. 
You have to situate your work in the context of other relevant scientific work, and give credit to other people who have contributed. No scientific paper would be accepted if it lacks a references section. 
Any claims that you make, to attract people to pay attention to your work, must be backed up by the results of the paper. Work that fails to meet these criteria is simply ignored, rather than explicitly censored or punished. 
So, unlike business and politics, there is practically no ÒmarketingÓ. No soundbite slogans, no focus groups, no polling, no bait-and-switch ads, no fine print.
Science tends to stay away from the practical near-term kinds of decisions that governments should make: Who gets how much money? WhatÕs illegal? Where to Invade Next? (also the title of a Michael Moore documentary). Which begs the question:
Can government utilize the process of science?
Broadly speaking our answer is: yes. But not unadulterated. 
We canÕt take decades to resolve short-term issues. We canÕt be wishy-washy with ÒprobablyÓ kinds of decisions. We need fairness, compassion and nuance in solutions, not a table full of numbers. We need definitiveness where certainty of outcome is not guaranteed. Laws need to anticipate the future, not merely cover past known cases. 
Each branch of science needs its own language to facilitate communication and thought of its members. So, too, does government by reason. Such a language is the core of our tool Justify, in the Tools for Reasonocracy  chapter. 
Processes need skilled people to perform them. Scientists are knowledgable in their discipline and should be able to communicate that knowledge to a wider audience. Similarly, legislators in a government need to be skilled in reasoning and to be talented at expressing rationale to their fellow legislators and the public.
Science is a lot of work, but our investments in it have paid off more profitably than anything else in society. Given the ROI (return on investment) of Science, itÕs shameful that society is so underinvested. There arenÕt enough places for science students at top universities, and prominent scientists spend large percentages of their time begging for research funding from ignorant bureaucrats (we, unfortunately, speak from experience). Meanwhile, vast spending on the military, commercial competition, and other activities that actually have a negative impact upon society, go unquestioned.
Politics meets Science
As scientists, we are tired of hearing political people admonish us, ÒScientists should get more involved in the political processÓ.
Sure, politics would be improved if there was more input from scientists (and if political people really took science seriously). But scientists are reluctant to get involved in politics precisely because they canÕt stand the contentiousness, viciousness and irrationality that characterize public debate in the political world. If you want us to get involved, clean house first.
WeÕll turn that on its head and say, ÒPolitical people should get more involved in the scientific processÓ. WeÕre not saying that political people must learn the subject matter of science (although knowledge of a scientific field would certainly aid reasoning). But they should really pay more attention to how discourse about issues takes place in science, and use science as a model for how cooperation between large groups of people can be achieved. 
The principles by which the scientific community organizes itself are far more reasonable than the political process of todayÕs US Democracy. WeÕll build upon these principles to make a more specific proposal for government in the next chapter, on Reasonocracy.