An Outside View
In research for a paper I have been working on, the source of Science’s objectivity has been of prime importance to me. Daniel Sarewitz begins his paper by stating “Science, pride of modernity, our one source of objective knowledge, is in deep trouble.” As students, especially STEM majors, we tend to hold the Scientific method in high esteem. Even with his pessimistic outlook, Sarewitz holds Science in high esteem — terms like the pride of modernity being the rule rather than the exception. But is science objective? Do we, as humans, somehow eliminate the bias which inseparably clings to us?
I argue not. There are 3 reasons for my opinion on this. Which I will term vaguely as the issues of scope, image, and application.
The scope of science has continued to expand beyond anything we could imagine. Instead of questioning Heliocentric and Geocentric models of orbit, scientists theorize about the structure and formation of black-holes whose existence was unimaginable until the 20th century. This leap comes with great progress with GPS, Bluetooth, Nuclear Energy, and Space travel being just a few résumé items boasted by Science. No one would argue against the vital importance of the scientific method in these technological advancements; however, many do argue that science can solve many things that it cannot. Sarewitz points this out when by asking a question — is sugar bad for you? While this question is understandable, a simple “yes” or “no” cannot answer it. I may tell you that refined sugars hold no nutritional value, or that the average American consumes 3 times the recommended amount of sugar. I may even tell you that those who remove added sugar from their diet claim to have more energy and never regret the decision. These are all true statements, but is sugar bad for you? I don’t know. There are many more questions which we may often hear about how science has solved them, but in reality, these topics are simply outside the scope of “provable” theory. Parenting, Religion, Politics, Relationship, Happiness: psychology may have their voice heard, and political scientists can never be silenced, but questions involving these topics are nearly always answered with “It Depends…”.
Image: any Christian will tell you that humans were made in the image of God. While this is a controversial opinion to say the least, I believe that man has created Science in his image. Throughout this article, I have been using the capital “S” to refer to Science as a discipline because I find writers naturally refer to it as if it was a person. Joshua Rothman’s subheading blatantly reveals states that “Science is Objective. Scientists are not.” As if the two can somehow be separated from each other. When discussing science, taking into account the “who” is just as important as the “what”. A biased scientist will produce biased results. Perhaps a group of scientists collectively may remove the bias of the one. This solves one problem but creates two. First, any group of self-defined scientists will have shared beliefs, these beliefs must be based on some biases that they share in part or full, how is this group bias accounted for? Second, if both the group and the individual are biased, how can one determine which is accurate and which is biased?
Data is the answer provided by Rothman, but this only raises more questions. Who decides what data? Who gets to see the data? How do scientists decide what data should be gathered and what shouldn’t, and finally, what happens if the data contradicts itself, or is inconclusive? If I am studying a measurable, narrow subject then I may be able to avoid these questions, but by and large, there are no all-inclusive answers to this.
Application: So you’ve found the answer. The riddle has been solved, and your paper has been published. How will people use your findings? Will your conclusion be the next step in radiation cancer treatment, or the next step in nuclear weaponry, or perhaps both. Progress comes at a cost. Nuclear warfare, identity theft, public doxing, eugenics and social Darwinism, all realities that no one could possibly have guessed would arise from the underlying “progress”.
Writer Mike Carry once said, “We make our own monsters, then we fear them for what they show us about ourselves.” I agree with this statement. Both Rothman and Sarewitz argue that Science as an impersonal being once was flawless and has now been skewed, but science with a little “s” has never been perfect. Humans make mistakes, and if Science is an invention of man, then it has been made in our imperfect image. Once we understand this, we may begin to use science properly.
