Why scientists don’t rule the world.

How to use the unrealised potential of scientific thinking to transform your life.

Scientific thinking has transformed the world, but it remains underutilized. Here’s why—and how you can use it to think, work, and lead more effectively.

The scientific revolution: unlimited potential

The leaders of the scientific revolution expected scientific thinking to dominate.

"The true and lawful goal of the sciences is none other than this: that human life be endowed with new discoveries and powers." Francis Bacon

Bacon saw science not just as a means of understanding the world but as a transformative force that would improve human life through continual discovery and progress. His vision laid the groundwork for the idea that science should serve humanity by expanding its capabilities.

While we have seen amazing advancements because of science, scientific thinking dominates the public discourse less and less. The decline of scientific thinking is, of late, picking up pace.

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Isaac Newton

This sentiment of Newton illustrates his expectation that as knowledge increases, what is possible will continue to expand. It also underlines one of the principal features of scientific thinking.

Intellectual humility.

Someone with a high degree of intellectual humility is always willing to question what they think is true.

Needing to be right vs. getting it right

Most of us, as Steven Pinker puts it, cannot get past the need to be right. Even when faced with contradictory evidence, our need to be right blinds us, and we stick to our original thinking.

People who can move beyond the need to be right have the ability to learn and adapt as they iterate closer and closer to the truth. No subjective biases or fears hold them back.

People with intellectual humility are also great to work with because they listen to what you say. They are willing to entertain your need to be right.

Science and intellectual humility

Science is not just a collection of facts; it is a method of systematically questioning, testing, and refining our understanding of the world. It is not a body of knowledge, it is not a process or a practice, and it is not an opinion. Nothing in science is set in stone.

Traditional Chinese medicine is not a science, nor is Western medicine. Western medicine gives preference to practices that have been scientifically tested, but medicine itself is not a science.

Everything is subject to change with the emergence of new evidence that contradicts long-standing beliefs.

The observation-hypothesis-testing-reasoning iterative loop of scientific thinking is the embodiment of intellectual humility. The most celebrated successes in science are when new findings contradict what everyone thought was true. In other words, science as a discipline is willing to be proven wrong.

Intellectual humility is coded into the DNA of scientific thinking. What's great about the intellectual humility you have in science is that it helps you:

• Escape biases

• Access many different modes of thought

• Avoid being ruled by an emotional need to be correct.

• Become the type of person whom others want to follow.

The failure of science

So, it would seem that because scientific thinking is such a powerful way to learn, adapt and lead, that now more than 400 years after Galileo’s statement, scientific thinking should dominate everything we do.

Why is that not the case?

Scientific thinking met its first challenge when science conflicted with religion.

It has met another challenge more recently when science presents what Al Gore terms inconvenient truths. Inconvenient truths such as climate change and the tragic pandemic exponentially increase the appeal of non-scientific explanations.

However, these periods of setbacks could have been avoided if more had been done to address obstacles blocking the wider adoption of scientific thinking:

Obstacle #1: The Misconception of Science – People don’t understand what science actually is.

Obstacle #2: Scientists Are Human. We are full of biases, beliefs, and, as Pinker puts it, the need to be right.

Obstacle #3: Scientists Avoid Engagement. They especially politics, and increasingly more politicians think scientists should stick to science.

Obstacle #4: Scientific thinking Stays in Science – Not enough application outside of research, even by scientists.

Scientific thinking beyond the lab

Adam Grant, in his book Think Again, calls for people to think more like scientists; in other words, adopting a scientific thinking mindset.

This is taken to another level in Anne-Laure LeCunff's just-released book Tiny Experiments. LeCunff illustrates how approaching life with curiosity and an immediate willingness to conduct tiny experiments is a great way to overcome fear and beat back procrastination. She challenges the pressure to pursue linear goals and instead encourages an experimental mindset—one where continuous reinvention takes centre stage.

I experienced the value of the tiny experiments approach myself when I took part in a year-end challenge as part of LeCunff's Ness Labs community. I wanted to end my doom scrolling by replacing it with a habit of reading and then creating structured notes in a personal knowledge management system.

By taking an experimental approach, I iterated and adapted my approach to this structured form of note-taking.

Learning in public

This was also an exercise in what LeCunff calls learning in public. I documented my progress and my thinking on a Ness Labs community thread.

Most people view learning as a private process. But in science, progress happens in the open, through peer review, discussion, and collaboration. When you apply this to your own work, you accelerate your ability to grow and lead.

"Whatever your knowledge level, learning in public will always be an act of vulnerability." Anne-Laure LeCunff

Here we come back to scientific thinking as the ultimate form of intellectual humility. Showing that you are vulnerable is one of the best ways to turn a back-and-forth discussion into a dialogue where you build on each other's ideas.

Creating a dialogue this way makes the collective intelligence of a group available to you for solving the problems you face.

In my work supporting consortium projects, I see that scientists are reluctant to learn in public. They hold back results and gloss over problems when presenting outside of their group. When they bring up those problems, often someone in the room has the perfect solution or offers something like another dataset that magnifies their result.

What makes scientific thinking so suitable for learning in public is that in science there are agreed rules for criticism and discussion that avoid making it personal. In a good scientific discussion, anyone is allowed to offer evidence, and you can change the thinking of everyone involved by showing evidence that is not consistent with what is being discussed.

Science’s action bias

Another feature of scientific thinking is that it is action-oriented. No matter where you are in your thinking or discussion, there are always experiments you can go and do. In fact, Anne-Laure LeCunff argues in her new book Tiny Experiments that by having a more science-like habit of experimenting, you can achieve a more mindful type of productivity.

It’s not solely the scientists’ fault

In reality, it is not so much that scientists have failed to dominate; rather, it is that everyone else has failed to adopt scientific thinking as much as they could.

Scientific thinking clearly has its limitations. You cannot always test your hypotheses. Also, you only really learn something when your experiments produce results that are inconsistent with your hypothesis. Results consistent with your hypothesis could be because you have not limited confounding variables, or looked widely enough. Scientific thinking is also not so good for designing. Think about Ford's assertion that if he had taken a more scientific approach and asked people what they wanted, they would have said "Faster horses."

How to tap into the potential of scientific thinking

Nonetheless, from a long line of prominent thinkers starting with Galileo and culminating with Adam Grant and Anne-Laure LeCunff, there is unrealised potential in scientific thinking. Here are ways you can tap into that potential:

• Ask yourself if what you are being presented stands up to scientific thinking or if the person or group is more about their need to be right instead of getting it right.

• When faced with a problem, don't hesitate to take action. Form a hypothesis and think about how to test it.

• Be forthcoming about the problems you are facing. Learn in public. Gain access to the collective intelligence of those around you.

• View the input of others as data with which to test your hypotheses. In other words, listen to others.

• Make plans with others to explore different possibilities.

• Use the resulting relationships to build and lead collaborations on a scale that will make a difference.

Taking the scientific revolution further

Francis Bacon imagined a world transformed by scientific thinking—not just in laboratories but in every aspect of life. While we’ve fallen short of that vision, we have the power to reclaim it.

By embracing scientific thinking—not as scientists, but as individuals—we can reshape the way we lead, solve problems, and create impact.

This is now at this time more important than ever before.

It will require the development and success of impact for initiatives. Start by positioning what you do for substantial funding.