Amherst HSTEM 2020 Spring
By Bella Han ’22
Many advise us that we cannot see the forest for the trees. This old saying, common across many cultures, originates from the idea that one should not be so caught up in the details of something but instead prioritize what is important as a whole. That is, to focus on the big picture rather than individual aspects. This idea becomes particularly crucial when we work as a team, with collective motivation. For instance, imagine yourself working on a group project. While we may divide up the work for efficiency, we must remind ourselves of how each person’s contributions relate to the overall purpose of the project. In this sense, we interpret this saying through a utilitarian, or practical, lens. However, this interpretation and what underlies it are not universal.
Let me offer a different interpretation of the axiom. What is so important about the forest as a whole that we cannot focus on the trees? Without the individual trees, the forest cannot even exist! Each tree—different in its tallness, shape, or color—is equally, if not more, important than the forest itself. The interactions between them, however big or small, constitute the forest, which then constitutes the greater natural community. In this sense, the forest is analogous to a society. Not only do individuals interact amongst themselves and build society, but no two individuals are the same within it. Contrary to what others may advise, I encourage us to see the forest for the trees. In the absence of respectful acknowledgment of each individual, the value and motivation of society disappear. Therefore, I offer a sociological and philosophical lens to view our society.
As we recognize individuality, these unique traits may gather and develop a shared motivation. One of the most common identities valued today revolves around STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Those who identify as “STEM people” study these subjects, work in STEM fields, or simply have experience or interest in STEM. When asked about their enthusiasm for STEM, many often respond that its objectivity attracts them. That is, the boundary between truth and falsehood in scientific or mathematical inquiry is clear, upheld by seemingly universal objectivity. However, is this true? What do we really mean by scientific inquiry and the objectivity that upholds it?
Science has been broadly defined as the “knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws as obtained and tested through scientific method and concerned with the physical world.” Following this definition, we superficially believe that scientific inquiry employs objectivity, as scientists deal with general “truths” of the physical world. Intuitively, we associate objectivity with impartiality and accuracy in scientific work. However, Helene Longino, a philosophy professor at Stanford University, challenges this notion in her book Science as Social Knowledge. She argues that objectivity in science does not stem from an individual’s unbiased efforts but from the intrinsic social character of scientific inquiry. While the motivation for science lies in understanding reality as accurately as possible, the process is inherently social. Any scientific proposition must be discussed, reviewed, and accepted by a community to hold public value. Though seemingly paradoxical—since collective opinion constitutes what is considered objective—scientific knowledge is social in both its creation and its applications.
Sandra Harding, a philosophy professor at UCLA, also critiques traditional notions of objectivity by introducing standpoint epistemology. Harding argues that traditional objectivity is insufficient—“not rigorous or objectifying enough”—to meet the goals of scientific inquiry. When scientific investigations are conducted only by those in power, they rarely reflect the concerns of marginalized groups. Harding posits that marginalized individuals are often better positioned to ask significant, insightful questions about the world than those in privileged positions. Specifically, when historically marginalized groups, such as women, gain access to scientific endeavors, they can address issues affecting both marginalized and dominant groups. This inclusion fosters stronger objectivity, as it broadens the scope of inquiry. While Longino initiates the idea of science as social knowledge, Harding expands it by identifying measures necessary to achieve this vision.
These arguments highlight the importance of being human in STEM. Scientific inquiry is a social process, and the defining feature of being human—our ability to reason—has value only when shared. This makes scientific inquiry not only social but also possible. Longino’s perspective challenges us to understand how society shapes science while acknowledging its dependence on interactions with the physical world.
Earlier in this essay, I suggested that we should see the forest for the trees, contrary to the common saying. Since individuals make up society, it is more appropriate to consider individuals before society as a whole. As Longino and Harding emphasize, focusing solely on society’s collective aspirations—on the forest itself—can blind us to the voices of minorities and marginalized groups. It can also lead us to overlook the unique beauty of each tree that nature has to offer. Because science, often thought to be devoid of social influence, is indeed a social process, recognizing individual values, backgrounds, perspectives, and identities strengthens the objectivity of scientific inquiry. Hence, I do not simply prefer but urge that we see the forest for the trees.