Streetlight Effect in Science

In the labyrinth of scientific inquiry, there exists a phenomenon known as the "streetlight effect." This concept, rooted in human cognition and perception, highlights our tendency to focus on what is easily quantifiable and measurable, while neglecting what lies beyond the reach of our metaphorical flashlight. Allow me to illustrate this concept through the timeless wisdom of Nasreddin Hodja.

One evening, as Nasreddin Hodja was wandering through the streets of his village, he found himself searching frantically near a streetlight, peering into the darkness beneath it. A curious bystander approached and inquired, "Hodja, what are you looking for?"

"I've lost my keys," replied Hodja, his gaze fixed on the ground beneath the flickering light.

Eager to assist, the bystander joined Hodja in scouring the ground beneath the streetlight, searching tirelessly for the missing keys. After a while, with no success in sight, the bystander asked, "Hodja, are you sure you lost your keys here?"

Hodja paused for a moment, scratching his beard thoughtfully. "Well, truth be told, I lost them further down the street. But it's much darker there, and I can't see a thing!"

With this parable in mind, let us delve into the metaphorical depths of the streetlight effect as it pertains to the pursuit of knowledge in science.

In the realm of scientific inquiry, researchers often find themselves metaphorically wandering through the darkness, armed with the proverbial flashlight of knowledge. Just like Hodja, they are drawn to areas illuminated by the light, focusing their efforts on what is easily quantifiable and measurable.

As technology advances, this metaphorical light grows brighter, illuminating previously unexplored corners of the scientific landscape. With sophisticated tools and techniques at their disposal, researchers can now measure and analyze phenomena with unprecedented precision. However, there is a danger in becoming too fixated on what lies within the reach of the light, while neglecting what remains shrouded in darkness.

Take, for example, the field of environmental science, where the impacts of climate change are a pressing concern. While metrics such as carbon emissions and temperature changes are readily quantifiable and well-studied, other, less tangible aspects of the problem, such as cultural attitudes towards conservation or the resilience of ecosystems, may receive less attention.

Furthermore, the streetlight effect can influence not only the focus of scientific research but also public perception and policy decisions. When certain aspects of a problem are illuminated by the metaphorical light of quantifiable data, they tend to capture the attention of policymakers, funding agencies, and the public. Meanwhile, other, less quantifiable dimensions of the issue may be relegated to the shadows, deemed less significant or urgent.

In an experiment I participated in, we were studying Lemna minor, commonly known as duckweed. As part of our research, we aimed to measure the dimensions of both the leaves and roots of these tiny aquatic plants. However, we encountered a significant challenge: there were countless individuals to measure, and due to their small size, measuring each one was impractical. So, we decided to take measurements from sub samples of a few individuals to get a general idea, intending to extrapolate our findings.

However, I soon realized another complication: the randomness of selecting samples. With my own eyes, I could observe variations in size among individuals, and this subjectivity could inadvertently bias our sample selection. I might unconsciously choose individuals that appeared more representative of a certain size category, inadvertently skewing our results. Furthermore, when it came to recording measurements, there was pressure to conform to predetermined criteria, such as fitting data neatly into an Excel spreadsheet. Consequently, we often omitted extreme cases – the very small or the very large individuals – to make our data more manageable.

Similarly, within the environment where the lemna thrived, we found ourselves focusing solely on measuring water parameters that were easily accessible to us: temperature, pH, salinity, total dissolved solids (TDS), turbidity, and so forth. However, there might be other parameters lurking in the shadows that could have a more significant impact on the lemna population. Perhaps there were chemical contaminants or nutrient levels that we hadn't considered because they were not within the metaphorical area illuminated by our streetlight of investigation because it wasn't as accessible for us to measure.

Reflecting on this, it raises an important question: are the observations made with our eyes (when we can), despite their subjectivity, potentially more accurate than the small, arguably biased sample we take from the population? Is there a risk that in our quest for quantifiable data, we overlook the qualitative insights that could provide a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon at hand? These questions underscore the complexities of scientific inquiry and remind us of the need to balance of observation and measurement with the recognition of the limitations inherent in our methodologies. After all, the true essence of scientific exploration lies not only in what we can measure, but also in our willingness to venture into the unknown and explore the unquantifiable dimensions of our world.

In today's world, as we quantify more and more things, the not quantified observations appear less and less accurate and less important in those areas where most things are quantified, such as in the field of biology. This trend exacerbates the streetlight effect, as researchers and policymakers are increasingly drawn to what can be easily quantified, potentially overlooking valuable insights that lie beyond the reach of current measurement techniques.

So, what can be done to mitigate the effects of the streetlight bias in scientific inquiry? One approach is to embrace a more holistic and interdisciplinary perspective, acknowledging that complex phenomena often require multifaceted solutions. By incorporating qualitative insights alongside quantitative data, researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand.

Additionally, fostering a culture of curiosity and open-mindedness within the scientific community is essential. Encouraging researchers to explore unconventional ideas and pursue lines of inquiry that may not yield immediately quantifiable results can lead to breakthroughs and discoveries that might otherwise have been overlooked.

My solution is that we should look at the subject at hand not in the eyes of scientist but also several other perspectives that doesn't prioritize creating explanation based on measurement. Before asking "How to do", "How to measure" questions we should look at the pattern we observed and think about "What" questions before marching to other questions.

In conclusion, the tale of Nasreddin Hodja reminds us of the dangers of becoming too fixated on what is easily quantifiable and measurable in the pursuit of knowledge. By acknowledging the limitations of the metaphorical streetlight and embracing the darkness beyond, we can strive for a more nuanced, inclusive approach to scientific inquiry. Only then can we hope to illuminate the full spectrum of knowledge and understanding, even in the darkest corners of inquiry.