The world today is the world of today because of the science of yesterday.
Taking a look around there will always be at the very least, one thing that came to be because of the rise of science. Computers, electric fans, cell phones, distilled water, guitars, vitamins and medicines all exist because science has given man an avenue to make them. Democracies have been improved, poverty has been reduced, histories have been recalled and children with ADHD have been treated all because various social sciences have identified problems, formulated hypotheses, enacted experiments and arrived at conclusions to solve those given problems.
There is no doubt, science is useful.
Unfortunately because science has developed to be something so helpful, it has become a tendency for men to view science in a way much higher than it deserves to be looked at. There are those who see science as something capable of prescribing values and dictating life choices. Absurd as it may sound, it is reality. Today science has given man the option to abort children, change genders, make babies outside the womb, use contraceptives, kill people via a million different means and so much more.
Through the years the advancements introduced by science have led to the glorification of it as an institution. It has reached the point where science has been regarded as a god such that people start to believe that everything science offers is absolute, therefore all options it presents are looked upon as correct and valid. It is unfortunate that people forget that ‘just because you can do something, does not mean it is right.’ Just because we are capable of stealing does not mean we must steal, in the same way that just because we now have the means to abort children does not mean we must.
It has been said that “love is blind.” That in itself can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. With regards to love for science, having blind love is not a benefit because man’s love for it may lead him to be blinded to science’s many limitations. When we talk about love between couples it is alright to be blinded to the faults of the other because anyone in love needs to be patient with his partner and accept him as he is. This is not true when dealing with science because forgetting to acknowledge scientific limitations could lead to ones downfall in the sense that it could lead to a series of poorly formed lifestyle and moral choices.
There come great detriments when one begins to regard science as a god because by no means can it be regarded as one. Science may be powerful and useful but it is never benevolent, absolute nor perfect. It is not perfect because the results it claims are limited by the variety of perspectives, instruments used, interpretations, past and future developments and many more.
For instance, in scientific research, scientists are only able to arrive at the conclusions their methods and instruments are capable of finding. For example when studying the population of a given area, a scientist would get different results if he used the method of experimentation as compared to when he simply used his method of observation. Also if ever he used sampling he would get a varying conclusion from when he makes use of statistics. It has been said that different problems require different solutions, but if the goal would be to arrive at a truly effective solution, all of the hundreds of methods would need to be considered.
On another note, differentiation of results should be expected seeing as science is dependent on sense organs and perceptions. Scientific instruments are extensions of the human sense. Because everyone observes things differently, it is possible that what one scientist can see, the other cannot. It is incorrect to generalize a concept based on the observation of one scientist. And if ever observations do coincide there is still a possibility that findings will not be the same due to the fact that people interpret things based on where they are coming from, their background knowledge, experiences etc.; therefore everyone is capable of interpreting a single variable differently.
To add to those already grave limitations is the ultimate limitation that science is only competent enough to look at one aspect of reality as compared to gods who are all powerful and therefore see all. Although able enough to claim progress in the natural world, science is not capable of looking into aspects deeper than what is physical. In its drive for objectivity science tends to eliminate personal factors such as religious commitment, devotion, values and the meanings of life. In its aim to find solutions to problems faced by society it ceases see an integrated world view thereby excluding natural beauty and original tendencies. Furthermore, because of this, it can be said that science is merely descriptive: it can give us the means to solve something or it can offer us the means to progress but it is in no position to tell us which of those means must be pursued and which ends are of greater importance. Science may describe to us why a mother’s right to choose is a value and it may offer us means for a woman to avoid getting pregnant but we cannot dismiss the fact that the values science claims are idealized by individuals or groups of people and therefore are not objective nor are they always in line with a persons’ higher values which ultimately are dependent on his religion or if not, on his original natural, rational nature.
Fact is, dismissive as people might be, these higher values are of great importance and they are things that must be respected and left unaltered. Science has no right to prescribe values because it is by no means in the same level as the gods we worship. For those who believe in religions, a god is one who is patient, just, merciful and divine. A god is one who is all knowing and pursues only what is good. Science cannot be regarded as a god because the benefits it brings are not mutually exclusive. Solutions it offers may be beneficial to one party but detrimental to another. Take abortion for instance. It may benefit the mother because she will not have to burden herself with the pregnancy, it may benefit the rest of the family because there will be one less mouth to feed and one less brain to educate and it may even be beneficial to society if ever it is the type that looks at children as a burden to the already increasing population. However if there is one life it will not benefit, it is the life of the unborn baby—the completely innocent child who had not a single say with regard to her death; the life that harmed no one but is about to suffer something similar to the death penalty. There is absolutely no justice there but it is something science has allowed because it believes that good intentions can overrule any action.
The failure to acknowledge the limits of science leads to what is known as “scientism” which is an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science. This is when one believes that science has no boundaries and that in time, all human problems will be solved by science alone. This belief is sad, incorrect and probably a result of excessive pride. Science definitely improved our lives by a million fold; however when one extends his trust to areas where science is no longer justified as seen in scientism, it directs him towards terribly erroneous conclusions. As already established, science has severe limitations and even if it seeks to study the truth and to improve reality, fact is that it is neither in the realm nor in the capability of science to look beyond the material world. It can therefore be concluded that science and scientists are not gods and so they are not in the position to impose values nor are they in the position to tell man what ought to or ought not to be pursued.
The world today is the world of today because of the science of yesterday but the better world of tomorrow will not be the best world of tomorrow if man does not recognize what or who must be glorified at the end of the day.
by Pauline Zamora
It has been said that “love is blind.” That in itself can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. With regards to love for science, having blind love is not a benefit because man’s love for it may lead him to be blinded to science’s many limitations. When we talk about love between couples it is alright to be blinded to the faults of the other because anyone in love needs to be patient with his partner and accept him as he is. This is not true when dealing with science because forgetting to acknowledge scientific limitations could lead to ones downfall in the sense that it could lead to a series of poorly formed lifestyle and moral choices.
There come great detriments when one begins to regard science as a god because by no means can it be regarded as one. Science may be powerful and useful but it is never benevolent, absolute nor perfect. It is not perfect because the results it claims are limited by the variety of perspectives, instruments used, interpretations, past and future developments and many more.
For instance, in scientific research, scientists are only able to arrive at the conclusions their methods and instruments are capable of finding. For example when studying the population of a given area, a scientist would get different results if he used the method of experimentation as compared to when he simply used his method of observation. Also if ever he used sampling he would get a varying conclusion from when he makes use of statistics. It has been said that different problems require different solutions, but if the goal would be to arrive at a truly effective solution, all of the hundreds of methods would need to be considered.
On another note, differentiation of results should be expected seeing as science is dependent on sense organs and perceptions. Scientific instruments are extensions of the human sense. Because everyone observes things differently, it is possible that what one scientist can see, the other cannot. It is incorrect to generalize a concept based on the observation of one scientist. And if ever observations do coincide there is still a possibility that findings will not be the same due to the fact that people interpret things based on where they are coming from, their background knowledge, experiences etc.; therefore everyone is capable of interpreting a single variable differently.
To add to those already grave limitations is the ultimate limitation that science is only competent enough to look at one aspect of reality as compared to gods who are all powerful and therefore see all. Although able enough to claim progress in the natural world, science is not capable of looking into aspects deeper than what is physical. In its drive for objectivity science tends to eliminate personal factors such as religious commitment, devotion, values and the meanings of life. In its aim to find solutions to problems faced by society it ceases see an integrated world view thereby excluding natural beauty and original tendencies. Furthermore, because of this, it can be said that science is merely descriptive: it can give us the means to solve something or it can offer us the means to progress but it is in no position to tell us which of those means must be pursued and which ends are of greater importance. Science may describe to us why a mother’s right to choose is a value and it may offer us means for a woman to avoid getting pregnant but we cannot dismiss the fact that the values science claims are idealized by individuals or groups of people and therefore are not objective nor are they always in line with a persons’ higher values which ultimately are dependent on his religion or if not, on his original natural, rational nature.
Fact is, dismissive as people might be, these higher values are of great importance and they are things that must be respected and left unaltered. Science has no right to prescribe values because it is by no means in the same level as the gods we worship. For those who believe in religions, a god is one who is patient, just, merciful and divine. A god is one who is all knowing and pursues only what is good. Science cannot be regarded as a god because the benefits it brings are not mutually exclusive. Solutions it offers may be beneficial to one party but detrimental to another. Take abortion for instance. It may benefit the mother because she will not have to burden herself with the pregnancy, it may benefit the rest of the family because there will be one less mouth to feed and one less brain to educate and it may even be beneficial to society if ever it is the type that looks at children as a burden to the already increasing population. However if there is one life it will not benefit, it is the life of the unborn baby—the completely innocent child who had not a single say with regard to her death; the life that harmed no one but is about to suffer something similar to the death penalty. There is absolutely no justice there but it is something science has allowed because it believes that good intentions can overrule any action.
The failure to acknowledge the limits of science leads to what is known as “scientism” which is an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science. This is when one believes that science has no boundaries and that in time, all human problems will be solved by science alone. This belief is sad, incorrect and probably a result of excessive pride. Science definitely improved our lives by a million fold; however when one extends his trust to areas where science is no longer justified as seen in scientism, it directs him towards terribly erroneous conclusions. As already established, science has severe limitations and even if it seeks to study the truth and to improve reality, fact is that it is neither in the realm nor in the capability of science to look beyond the material world. It can therefore be concluded that science and scientists are not gods and so they are not in the position to impose values nor are they in the position to tell man what ought to or ought not to be pursued.
The world today is the world of today because of the science of yesterday but the better world of tomorrow will not be the best world of tomorrow if man does not recognize what or who must be glorified at the end of the day.
by Pauline Zamora
No comments:
Post a Comment