Column | To measure is (not) to know

There were once two types of natural scientist, wrote the British philosopher Francis Bacon in 1620. One type tried to capture the world in theoretical schemes and got stuck in fantasies. The other guy, diligently and thoughtlessly like the ants, collected data on all sorts of things. Modern natural scientists have done things differently, according to Bacon. They worked with the best of both types, distilling theoretical laws from carefully collected observations, like bees extracting honey from nectar.

This “modern” method has since been much more refined and adapted. Measurement methods have become more sophisticated. The new mathematics helped to put laws into formulas. And most importantly, those formulas used to make predictions that could be confirmed or disproved in purposely designed experiments – a great way to test the accuracy and strength of underlying ideas and theories.

“By measuring to know”, the Dutch Nobel Prize winner Heike Kamerlingh Onnes summed up this method in 1882 during his inaugural lecture in Leiden. Onnes would then liquefy helium, create the coldest place on Earth in his lab, and discover “superconductivity.” And it’s no wonder that such an experimenter put “measurement” first.

Nor is it surprising that theorists point out that, conversely, “knowledge” often inspires measurement. Take the prediction of the Higgs boson, which led to the construction of cathedral-sized detectors at the European Institute for Particle Research CERN near Geneva. The crucial point is of course that a subtle interplay between measuring and knowing and between thinking and testing provides increasing insight into the world.

It is precisely for this reason that it is a pity that Onnes’ assertion has worn off so quickly: “to measure is to know”. Because that’s just not what measurement looks like in science, Bacon has already shown. In addition to measuring, knowledge also requires reflection and a context formed by knowledge. Scientists who emphatically ignore this context, or who blindly ignore the limits of measurement, are doing science a disservice, and sometimes people as well.

What ignoring restrictions can do is illustrated by research into the side effects of medications. These were usually determined for average men and in itself it is not surprising to assume averages here. Physicists who measure an electron immediately know all the electrons, but each person is the product of unique genes and a unique environment. Working with averages is often the only option. It is doubtful that it was wise to exclude women from the study because of their “disrupting” hormones. In any case, it is clear that anyone who continues to ignore that the data does not represent the average woman will burden half the population with possible incorrect dosing and its consequences.

The results of ignoring context have become apparent in science itself, with the hyperfocus on the so-called h-index. As a measure of the number of publications and citations by scientists, the h-index does not take into account issues such as teaching, book writing and the subsequent context of scientific practice. But the blind focus on the h-index, which has become the benchmark for the development of scientific careers, has so eclipsed all these other aspects that they must now be brought back to the fore with specific programs. Incidentally, the same hyperfocus has been haggling over nitrogen concentrations for decades, while plant and animal species are rapidly and silently disappearing from the Netherlands.

Perhaps the most annoying thing about “measurement is knowledge” is that this statement suggests the existence of a definitive, indisputable and infinitely exact measurement and thus provides fertile ground for the tactic of “delayed measurements”. “. Like the language of backwardness coined by the poet Lieke Marsman, measures of backwardness mask political inertia. Think of Groningen, where cracks in walls are appearing and holes are falling in roofs, while the government and companies continue to call for more research into the link between gas mining and earthquakes. Or think of the long line of climate reports that have increasingly demonstrated the link between human actions and climate change, yet have been dismissed so often if not outright.

All in all, isn’t it time to push back the idea of ​​“measuring is knowing”, at least to describe how science works? Perhaps physicist and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek’s “think, play, repeat” offer some clues. It names thinking, emphasizes the creative side of research through “play” and shows through “repetition” that there is always more to know. “To measure is to know” can then still be used for weighing cheese or moving forward, for counting birds or molecules – in a clear context.

Margriet van der Heijden is a physicist and professor of science communication at the Eindhoven University of Technology.