Science, Science

Science, Science
(The Science Cheer)

Gimme a S…Gimme a C…Gimme a I…Gimme a E…Gimme a N…Gimme a C…Gimme a E…What does it spell?
Science, Science,
You’re OK,
Bring us a better life,
With each passing day.


When was it agreed to and decreed that only science can be the judge of fact and truth? How did that happen? How has science become the final say on subjects when science almost always gets it wrong on the way to getting it right? After all, making mistakes is one of the most important parts of the scientific method because mistakes and human misjudgments are the only way of discovering the final truth. By the way, it is virtually impossible to arrive at the “final” truth anyway because the final truth is like beauty, that is, it’s in the eye of the beholder notwithstanding the fact everything in this universe is constantly changing so such a thing as the “final truth” is probably not unobtainable in any event. This is true because the human mind is indeed a wonderful thinking machine but having complete knowledge of all things in order to discover the “final truth” is well beyond human cognition capabilities at this point in our development, even if it were possible. Of course, this means we must get it wrong before we can finally get it right, or as someone once said, “To error is Human.” So at what point should people believe that scientific method has ground out enough of the truth on the matter to be useful? When advocacy groups or Government quotes “Science” as having unequivocal knowledge about a certain matter, e.g., Global Warming, how do people know that enough truth has been arrived at by science to allow society to act in a responsible and knowledgeable manner? There are a number of problems facing society in this regard. First, science is a discipline, not an organization, and so there can never be unanimity on a subject regardless of the amount of time and effort spent to discover the truth. Further, because science is a discipline, no one speaks for all of science on a matter, but anyone or any organization can use or misuse scientific findings as they see fit without consequence to the discipline of science. Most important in this regard is the dark side of knowledge (see my piece, “The Dark Side of Knowledge”), e.g., making an atomic or hydrogen bomb from knowledge of E=MC2, practicing eugenics from knowledge of evolution, etc. Second, science is better at describing things while not truly understanding things, and if you don’t truly understand things, how can you know the full truth. For example, Maxwell’s equations fully describe electromagnetic fields to such an extent that engineers can use the equations to design many modern things such as electric motors, Radio, and on and on, but no one completely understands why there are propagating electric and magnetic waves associated with the spinning particles of matter. Third, science has always been susceptible to political manipulation and control. The classic example being, of course, the conviction of Galileo for heresy because of his scientific founded views. The modern politicization of science has now reached such a level that the discipline is rapidly losing credibility as a force for finding the truth. The politicization is occurring within the scientific community itself because of ideology beliefs held by the scientists and sponsors of scientific research. Published findings of research are often manipulated nowadays to be more compliant with the political views or competitive objectives of sponsors, be they government entity or commercial enterprise. The politicization of science colors research and subsequent findings with a desired political or competitive requirement rather than objective absolute scientific truth. These and other problems with the scientific community, makes the use of modern scientific research for Governmental policy justification and commercial enterprise suspect, at the very least. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a great believer in the scientific method of investigation because, in the course of time, science usually gets it correct. Science eventually gets it right mainly because of the peer review that has a vested interest due to good old fashioned human competition. But alas, there is also a growing problem with peer review because in today’s confrontational environment even peer review is being perverted by political groupthink and monetary objectives. The scientific community should be soundly reprimanded for squandering it’s hard earned credibility upon the alters of ideology and money and letting society to fend for itself in trying to decide the truth in scientific matters.