Unlock the Power of Scientific Thinking: A Social Journey

Introduction

From the onset of civilization, humankind has taken considerable strides in scientific thinking. Our penchant for uncovering trends, establishing patterns and predicting effects has contributed massively to innovations and technological advancements in different fields. The modern generation exemplifies this spirit of scientific inquiry thanks to an intensive educational culture. Contrary to the popular perception, this spirit extends beyond the scientist's labs to the social fabric itself. Regardless of our different professions, we are all scientists at heart. In the conversations around our coffee tables, logical thinking abides, and no fallacies go unquestioned. 'Experimental' mentality pervades all aspects of modern social life. It is the unwritten code upon which the fate of social groupings is pegged. To a greater extent, it affects the ability of members of a team to corporate. People with similar levels of scientific together are often like birds of the same feathers. Conversely, social groupings where members do not conform to the same standards of experimental thinking are fragile. "Non-conformity in experimental thinking breeds misunderstandings and conflicts" (Thibaut 24). This article aims to educate the reader on how "experimental" thinking affects social group's ability to corporate, thereby shaping our social settings.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Experimental thinking tends to question all things, even religious and cultural beliefs. On the other hand, conservative thinkers consider these beliefs as self-evident truths and thus unquestionable. Despite the advancement of scientific thinking, religious and cultural beliefs are still firmly rooted in society. Due to their nature, debates on such topics are sensitive and can elicit emotional reactions. For that reason, "experimental" opinions within a conservative group are likely to be met with resistance and contempt. In such a case, group members will feel offended by the attack on their religious beliefs. Conflict will be inevitable. However, a more tolerant social grouping will provide room for the contrary opinions. Such groups will still work together towards the desired goal in spite of the differences in opinion. Sometimes, "experimental" thinkers themselves rather than conservative individuals are the barrier to cooperation. Through questioning every decision made by the group, these thinkers can stall progress and make consensus impossible. Constant opposition to even trivialities can frustrate the rest of the members, thereby perpetuating conflict. Tolerance, therefore, goes both ways; "it does not mean that one party sacrifices while the others do not" (McPherson, Pamela, and Sonja 161). Most importantly, group members must learn how to handle their differences in opinion, which also cooperating for the sake of achieving a common goal.

Secondly, experimental thinkers often restrain from the bandwagon mentalities. Amidst an environment of peer pressure, experimental thinkers remain unfazed. Most groups thrive on peer pressure. Group members find themselves conforming to values or character dictated by the group. Before subscribing to the values, an experimental thinker will weigh the benefits of the behavior against their interests. Take the example of a group where most members are smokers. An experimental thinker will not be persuaded into the habit knowing that smoking is bad for their health. Through examining the mainstream opinion, an experimental thinker can uncover the underlying misconceptions and lies. Most social constructs such as political affiliations, lifestyle choices, and beliefs cannot stand in the face of such examination. Consequently, experimental thinkers tend to withdraw from the social sphere or challenge the establishment. As Australian climate expert Clive Hamilton argues, "In breaking the new depths of our collective climate failure, they were unwittingly destabilizing the political and social order." This deprives the social groups of energetic and creative individuals. These individuals find it difficult to partake in the rituals that bring together and thus feel left out. Moreover, they cannot integrate into the group for them because they might not share a common goal with the rest of the members. Experimental thinking can thus be a problem when attempting to galvanize the efforts of a diverse team.

In the 21st century, truths have become more relativistic with far-reaching cultural consequences. According to most people, there are no single universal objective truths. Instead, each point of view is regarded to hold its truth. When truth becomes a matter of perspective, the need for logical reasoning and appreciation of good evidence diminish. The cultural implication of relativistic thinking cannot be overstated. Our political climate is plagued with half-baked truths and propaganda. Not even the well-established scientific facts such as climate change have bipartisan support in the political sphere. People are comfortable believing convenient "truths" despite the lack of evidence to back-up their claims. Anderson and Bows-Larkin argue "the time has come to tell the truth to liberate science from economics, finance and astrology, and stand by the conclusion however uncomfortable...we need the audacity to think differently and conceive of future alternatives." Relativism creates an environment in which falsehood thrives. The lack of consensus on the most critical issues in our generation frustrates progress. Our leaders are to blame for perpetuating this toxic environment to advance their selfish interests. "As leaders, we have a full responsibility to fully articulate the risks our people face. If politics are not favorable to speaking the truthfully, then we must devote our energy to changing the politics" (Marlene Moses, Ambassador to the UN for Nauru, 2012). The lack of accountability to the truth in our politics negatively impacts our ability to cooperate within social groups. The polarizing effect that it imparts on our social groupings leads to endless conflicts and impairs progress.

The short-sightedness of the current generation is alarming. Though we live in an era where the future is at stake, our ignorance has prevented us from acting decisively. There is irrefutable warming for global warming as a growing threat caused by human activities. Instead of enacting stringent laws to mitigate this danger, we keep running in circles. For instance, legal uncertainty is currently threatening some of the most significant renewable energy on the planet. The World Trade Organization ruled against Ontario's green energy program on the grounds of violation and inconsistencies with international agreements. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, argues, "If the rules do not permit all kinds of measures to deal with climate change - and they don't - then trade rules obviously have to be rewritten." The current status quo on environmental protection thwarts common-sense resolution to climate change. People need to wake up to the fact that governments have tied us to international agreements which make significant response efforts to climate change illegal. As Joseph puts it "Should you let a group of foolish lawyers, who put together something together before understanding these issues, interfere with saving our planet?" Saving the planet from the harmful effects of industrialization should be our top priority. However, we must also consider the contribution of the bureaucratic structure in impeding essential measures to deal with climate change. The legal environment can us well affect our corporations within social groups, especially where the rules are non-progressive.

Works Cited

Brown, Rupert, and Samuel Pehrson. Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

Lewin, Kurt. "Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change." Human relations 1.1 (1947): 5-41.

McPherson, J. Miller, Pamela A. Popielarz, and Sonja Drobnic. "Social networks and organizational dynamics." American sociological review (1992): 153-170.

Thibaut, John W. The social psychology of groups. Routledge, 2017.