Certainty and Doubt

Researchers and practitioners in fields that include lighting science and illuminating engineering endeavor to balance objectivity with skepticism. Conviction is warranted when a position can be supported by robust and reliable data—e.g., vision deteriorates with age. Skepticism is warranted when supporting data are incomplete or unconvincing. For example, while there is no doubt that light mediates nonvisual responses such as melatonin suppression, the manner and degree to which that knowledge should inform lighting practice is less clear. When recommendations run too far ahead of what is known with conviction, it is prudent to be skeptical. Authors and speakers also persuade their audiences through narratives—stories that connect carefully selected sets of supposedly true observations. Conclusions are convincing when they can be supported by credible data, yet data tend to be curated, partial, and even when exhibiting internal validity may not apply to other contexts. Scientific viewpoints tend to be justified with intrinsically limited data that is chronicled through cogent narratives. For people seeking the ground truth, this process is exciting. Ideas are interrogated, caveats are stated, alternative explanations are considered, and degrees of both certainty and doubt are weighed. To someone outside of the scientific process, doubt may appear troubling, and certainty may be reassuring, but to a researcher, it is quite the opposite. Doubt pushes science toward deeper understanding, whereas certainty can be the bane of curiosity that impedes progress. While more research and more data will always be needed, considered choices can be made based on what is known. It is healthy to acknowledge that knowledge is incomplete, letting neither rational uncertainty nor irrational conviction stand in the way of progress. When faced with new data, changing one’s mind is not a failure, but a sign of growth. Formal discourse unfolds in the scientific literature, which relies on peer reviews to assess the credibility and veracity of scientific works. But the end goal of scientific works, especially in applied journals like LEUKOS, is not publication of the article, but the potential of the work to positively influence the world. This requires transfer of ideas or technologies from the scientific community to the public, a step that sometimes meets resistance. In recent years, there has been widespread erosion in the objective standards for truth. Public opinions are shaped by personal beliefs that are themselves influenced by appeals to emotion. Half-truths and outright falsehoods are sometimes promulgated to misinform. Does stating something false makes it true? An impartial reader might answer “no,” but in important domains of life that include politics and public policy, there is a blurry line between the rational and the fanciful. The repetition of false statements repeated ad nauseam and with conviction, has for some sowed seeds of doubt in science itself. LEUKOS relies on a wide network of scholars to assess submitted works. I am inspired by and appreciative of the incisive observations and depth of reviewer comments. Constructive commentary enables authors to improve final versions of accepted manuscripts, guides my decisions about what to accept and reject, and is the lifeblood for the high standards that LEUKOS endeavors to maintain. Skepticism and doubt are essential attributes for truthseeking, and you are invited to read LEUKOS with that mind-set. At the same time, be assured that the works that appear in these pages have been vetted by your peers and represent the leading edge of lighting science research and discovery.