How science and experience keep your house from falling down

Demolition (via stock.xchng)

So we recently had some construction guys over to demolish the heck out of our basement in preparation for some remodeling and it got me thinking…

…not about interior design, though I’ve been watching WAY too much HGTV lately, so it wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility….

No, as they were pounding and sawing their way through the walls and shaking the entire house in the process, I was thinking about the role of science in our lives. Not just in how we construct (and deconstruct) houses, but also in how we construct children’s lives.

Yes. I’m a total nerd.

What got me pondering this was the fleeting thought: “I wonder what would happen if they cut the wrong beam. Would the house collapse in on itself into a pile of rubble with me inside?”

Technically yes, if they cut the wrong beam it would. But these guys are professionals, so they know what beams to cut and which beams to keep.

The point is that my house is of sturdy construction, and the people working in it know what the heck they’re doing. There are construction standards in place; things that we as humans learned from centuries of attempting to build shelters that wouldn’t collapse. Things that were learned from geometry, physics, and a whole lot of trial and error. Over centuries, science and experience informed the practice of building houses so they wouldn’t fall in on themselves and take their owners with them.

So have we learned enough through science and experience to build sturdy kids?

I would argue, yes, probably. But frankly, I believe that we’re still in the nascent stages of the process. We’re just learning how science can help inform the process that is child development. We’ve certainly made advancements and we know a lot more about the development of things like the brain, emotions, thinking, etc., than we did a few decades ago, but we don’t always consider the practical uses for that knowledge. There exists a pretty wide gap between what we know, and what we do. That gap is, arguably, lessening to some extent, but it still exists.

Why?

Well, for a few reasons. Science tends to live in the laboratory and in sophisticated journal articles. Scientific advancements are not always communicated in a jargon-free way. And even when they are, often the public response, rightfully so, is “uh, okay, so what do I DO with that information?”

Scientists also have a propensity to believe science is the ultimate way of knowing. If it’s not a randomized control trial with the right variables, a big enough sample size, and sufficient background literature to back it up, it’s not really telling you anything. Every other type of knowledge, practical or otherwise, is often viewed as less important, and not supported by substantial evidence.

Now, don’t get mad at the scientists, they can’t help it, that’s just how they’re raised.

But as any practitioner, or anyone who works in the real world for that matter, can tell you, scientific knowledge is a just one piece of the puzzle. An important piece, but not more important than the knowledge gained from living.

It’s the combination of the scientific and “real world” knowledge that facilitates solid construction. Each, if used in isolation, is incomplete.

To return to our construction metaphor: If a builder builds a house using only the rules of physics, while not incorporating any prior experience or knowledge that his fellow builder has about building a house on a flood plain, it doesn’t matter how sound his use of physics is, that house will still wash away the next time the river bank overflows.

It’s the same with science and practical experience in child development. For example, if we design a treatment program that is “evidence-based”, but the evidence it is based on only comes from upper-middle class suburban white families, it may not be successful in other diverse communities because it does not account for any differences of experiences or lifestyles in those communities. If we only look at the science but don’t incorporate varied life experiences and knowledge, we get only part of the picture.

Bouncy Castle with Kids (via stock.xchng)

The point is that incorporating multiple perspectives or “ways of knowing”, including, but not exclusive to, scientific knowledge, is the most comprehensive way to build the developmental house. Using all those experiences and varieties of knowledge, we’re better able to build a house that is flexible to later remodeling.

Because let’s face it, life is full of remodeling. But if you use diversity of knowledge and experience to make sure you’re always facilitating the most solid construction, you won’t have to fear that the house will fall down while you’re inside.