Originally posted on September 7, 2020 @ 10:35 AM
Science and Acts of Faith in Safety
It was scholars like Kuhn, Feyerbend, Laktos and Law who first introduced the idea of the subjectivities in science, not just in method but methodology (philosophy of method). Also embedded in such concepts as ‘scientific method’ is the language and discourse in how Science expresses itself. Science can be understood as an activity, a discourse and an archetype.
In many ways when Science speaks of ‘truths’ or ‘proofs’ it means correlation between subjective assumptions and outcome. The idea that a process could be void of human subjective involvement is one of the myths of objectivity/positivism and certain safety approaches that propose that something is ‘scientific’. When one looks at the disconnect between many propositions in the safety industry about science they have much more to do with acts of faith in science than scientific proofs. The conclusions of Behaviour Based Safety (BBS) are a case in point. Many of the claims of BBS are acts of faith and attributions not empirical proofs.
Indeed, even the idea of ‘safety science’ (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753513001768) openly display a bias towards mechanics, materialism, behaviorism, positivism and empiricism. This bias is its subjectivity and that’s fine but don’t speak of conclusions that this is somehow both objective and holistic.
Many critical aspects that could be offered by a transdisciplinary approach (https://safetyrisk.net/transdisciplinary-safety/) are completely omitted from much safety science discussion especially critical aspects of Anthropology, Education and Learning, Discourse Analysis, Poetics, Semiotics and Social Psychology. Similarly, many critical disciplines are completely omitted from the AIHS BoK.
Lets take for example the recent publication on BS (https://www.fqmltd.com/post/what-is-behavioral-safety-workplace-examples-and-strategies). The discussion is full of endless assertions; undefined psycho-babble and BS gobbledygook that one assumes make sense to an initiated readership. Let’s address two critical omissions, what is the human unconscious? What is consciousness?
Of course, no one knows. Whilst neuroscience is trying to find some source of consciousness in materiality it has progressed no further with answering these questions than any other scientific endeavor. Yes, but here we have BBS knows all about consciousness and unconsciousness and ends up with simplistic assertions like ‘slips on concentration’, ‘errors’, ‘violations’, ‘mistakes’ and a host of other language about consciousness without definition. When you examine the Discourse of this discussion about measures, monitoring and reporting its all about assertion, attribution and assumption. Such critical discussions about concentration (consciousness) and loss of concentration (unconsciousness) are just assumed to need no discussion. For example, let’s look at this discussion from the text:
Unintentional Errors
‘We all make unintentional errors from time to time. It’s important when you see another person doing this, that you bring it to their attention right away. This may prevent them from harming themselves or others in the future’.
OK, what is an intention? Please explain this act of will and why such will is lost? Perhaps explain how 90% of all decision making is not consciously enacted anyway. Humans develop heuristical acts so they don’t have to ‘think’. Is this how one gets an ‘unintentional’ error?
The real crux of the discussion is not about understanding consciousness but rather this line ‘It’s important when you see another person doing this, that you bring it to their attention right away’. Ah, the power and control, that’s what BBS is really about. Or what about this comment:
‘Often it is the individual that holds our imperfect systems together – The fact that things are working, and people have not been hurt, is down to your employees efforts and luck’.
So, systems are imperfect, humans are imperfect and yet most of the time we act safely and unconsciously maintain order, process and methods. Yet the focus of BBS remains on behaviours, of course. Just as well we have the mystery of luck to pull us through.
And there it is, an act of faith wrapped up in the discourse of BBS. Of course, the by-products of BBS are never discussed. The brutalism of enacting a BBS regime are one of the silences of this so called ‘safety science’. One would need to embrace a transdisciplinary approach to engage with this problem (of dehumanizing persons) but why expand safety horizons when a good delusion will do (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-naivety-and-the-delusions-of-kiss/ ).
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Real Risk, An New Icon for SafetyRisk and Competition - December 4, 2023
- Understanding Human ‘Being’ The Foundation for Understanding Human Error - December 4, 2023
- The Behaviourist Human and Human Being - December 2, 2023
- There is no Fast and Slow Thinking, Nor Quick Learning - November 28, 2023
- Fragility, Resilience and AntiFragility in Risk - November 28, 2023
bernardcorden says
I find much of this reflects and aligns with that delightful and inspirational presentation from the the late Sir Ken Robinson “Do Schools Kill Creativity?”, which was referenced in an earlier post.
Our OHS Education Accreditation Board is bereft of any imagination or discernment and the hierarchy of STEM over humanities and the arts prevails throughout the entire OHS Body of Knowledge.
It is quite evident that the AIHS, OHSEAB and its cohorts of Pecksniffian lickspittles have been drinking from the fountain of free market fundamentalism and we are now experiencing the consequences.
Many of the malaperts have yet to grasp the difference between multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches and there is very little covering the work of Mary Douglas, Basarab Nicolescu, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Gregory Bateson or anything from the free-schoolers in the curricula.
It makes one wonder which cave these troglodytes have been inhabiting over the past two decades.