The Inaccurate View of Science
The Inaccurate View of Science
By Punkerslut
If I have one purpose in life, it is to enlighten those around
me. All too often, if one has a social and political awareness,
we are going to hear such statements as, "Science has proved
this," or "Science has proved that," and it will be implied in a
way that it is absolute. So often have I heard this statement,
that I feel it is necessary to write upon it.
Science may best be defined as a method of investigation, as
well as the results of that investigation. It allows scientists,
or at least followers of this method, to conduct experiments and
tests. Once the tests are concluded, other scientists may
conduct the same experiment to receive identical or similar
results. This is all simple, though, and certainly nothing new
to anyone well versed in the philosophy of science.
Society can be defined as the attitudes held in the minds of
those who are members of such a society. Reformers and
revolutionaries alike are intrinsic in developing good
societies, as they are the ones to form, mold, or alter the
attitudes of others. In the end, though, of course, only the
person can change themselves, in that they are open minded and
willing to understand new things. Writers and artists can only
help them in their journey to understanding. By creating
awareness about certain social and economical issues, by strife
that occurs between different classes, attitudes are molded and
formed. For example, if writers and poets focus much of their
art on an issue like police brutality, it may instill people
with the attitude that police officers and representatives of
the law have no authority to be cruel or malicious -- some of
the population may even fight back, defending themselves and
their rights. In this way, one flick of the pen can incite a
thousand protests. By molding the attitude of the public,
reformers and revolutionaries take on a great responsibility.
Yet it is here that we discover that the attitude of a society
is what makes up its foundation. Sometimes, reformers and
revolutionaries focus their energy solely on infusing the
attitude into a populace that there is nothing wrong in
considering new ideas, that it is no sin to rebuke ignorance of
knowledge, to -- in general -- have an open mind on all matters.
For example, if Germany's population had a positive attitude
about tolerance and acceptance, they would have never allowed
Hitler's policies to come into practice. In the United States,
there was a strong anti-war attitude among citizens, and 1,500
protestors rioted in San Francisco at George Bush's war.
Most importantly, for a society to flourish, in that it
contributes to the development of philosophical, scientific, and
literary thought -- through writing books, conducting
experiments, and creating inventions -- for a society to
prosper, it must have well-reasoned attitudes towards the
confronting political, economical, and social issues. In our
society, the belief that science is an absolute, single
figurehead remains as a sign that our attitude towards science
is rather weak. It is true, though, that not everyone will have
such an attitude. The public, though, does have such an
attitude. Science is not one set ideology. It is a mass of what
often seems to be quarreling, bickering, almost
beaurocratic-like scientists, arguing over the validity of
experiments, tests, and criticizing almost every point. For what
evidence you can get to support one theory, there will be five
scientists supporting opposite theories. At least, with new
theories attempting to explain new fields of understanding, this
is the case. There is the case of what I will call orthodox
science, on questions such as the movement of the planets in the
solar system or the roundness of the Earth. When a person states
that science has proved something, it is an empty, hollow
statement. Science itself proves nothing, as it is a method, and
the community that follows this method. If someone wants to
offer evidence that something is true, then show the experiment
or the data supporting it. "This person conducted this
experiment on this date, and found these results," -- this
statement, however, is specific. Unlike the vague "science
proves it," this statement can actually be criticized.
The importance of having this attitude towards science is
great. What we know as truth, especially in the scientific
community, is always changing and improving, with new
experiments confirming our hypothesis and other ones disproving
what we believed to be ancient wisdom for so long. It is
impractical to rely on "science" as a single body of perfect
knowledge, immune to learning and the passage of time. But it is
more than just knowing that science is one body, but it is
understanding it and having that attitude. It is very possible
to simply know that science always changes, but it is entirely
different thing to have the open mind that what scientists are
predicting is fallible, that our understanding of atoms and
electrons could be entirely false, that our knowledge on fusion
and fission are actually upside down from the actual true
understanding -- and that, even in a thousand years, our
knowledge in these areas will still be subject to new
experiments and discoveries. The inaccurate view of science is
that it is a single, immutable body of truth. The accurate view
of science is that it is a method of investigation and the
community that adheres to this method, as well as an
ever-changing collection of theories and evidence to support
these theories.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut