Thursday, February 26, 2015

Taking scientific theories with a grain of salt

I posted that our society needs to change our frame of reference on how we understand and accept scientific findings. During the Enlightenment, science took a forward step when the scientific method was implemented. Models were created to explain observations rather than taking the approach of "seeing only what I want to see because it agrees with my beliefs". Since then much progress has been made and we see the result in today's technology, medicine, and entertainment. So much progress has been made that we have begun to see science as more than it was intended.


To research and expound on my topic, I investigated people's thoughts on how they view society's changing interpretation of scientific findings. Several made the comment that people generally trust published science too much as irrefutable facts, which contradicts the original intent to generate and continually improve models. Science is not stagnant. Some models and theories will be modified or eventually discarded, because they simply do not serve us anymore. This is the key. Models are developed because of their usefulness, not because of their truthfulness.

Another interesting comment was that not all theories and models are equal. We very readily accept gravity as a valid model. Yes, Newton developed a convincing model with some pretty mathematics, but we really believe in it because we have everyday, personal experiences with it. Equating this belief in gravity with belief in the Big Bang or the theory of evolution is a stretch because we do not have the same experience with them. Belief in science really doesn't amount too much because most people do not deal with these theories or models on a personal level.

The overall tone of the conversations came to the difference in a religious-type belief and science-type belief. Religious authorities can proclaim absolute, value-based truths because that's the intent of religion. Science can provide models and theories for understanding physical observations. Treating scientific observations like religious beliefs will not work.

2 comments:

  1. I love your comment "models are developed because of their usefulness, not because of their truthfulness." Somewhere along the way that idea was lost. Perhaps when science was first challenging religion, science needed to be very radical and expansive. But that day has passed. The best science today is the science that benefits society the most, i.e. its usefulness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The tough thing here is that when we put our trust in modern science, we are often putting our trust in biased experiments that so-called scientists began with an end already in mind. So not only are they not worthy of our trust, but they're not useful, either. Putting "a religious-type belief" in something so unsure is no bueno.

    ReplyDelete