The other day, I was listening to a man who was commenting on some political issue. In defense of his views, he claimed to be a scientist. He was implying, I suppose, that his views were more liable to accuracy than, say, a non-scientist. I suppose we were supposed to believe that His rationalistic approach, his “just the facts, Mam” way of looking at things carried more weight than other approaches.
Science, of course, can be a wonderful thing. Who can count the many improvements that have come about through scientific research? We reap the benefits each day. It is obvious, in other words, that science is a potentially wonderful tool. When we use the minds that God gave us, we are much, much better off than when we fail to use them; that much is abundantly clear.
What struck me about what this man’s claims, however, was the naive way he expected his hearers to respond to him. Perhaps, he himself is naive, simply assuming the superiority of his own views. Or, it may be that he has taken a reductionistic approach, squeezing everything into his personal paradigm, even when his views are inconsistent with the evidence. Then again, it could be that he doesn’t recognize his own biases, failing to understand that not all claims to being “scientific” are equally valid. At any rate, it’s stuff like this that frustrates me.+
To begin with, it is important to admit that the assertions of scientists are not of equal value. In fact some assumptions, though based on the best reading of the data available at a given time, must be altered or even abandoned. I think the best scientists already know this, for they are not out to wave a flag so much as they are on an on-going mission to uncover and make best sense of what is available to them. Theories, hypotheses, hunches–even the best of them–must take a back seat to truth.
Of course it is here that scientists, like all people, are just as liable to bias and susceptible to error. Science, in other words, is not some pristine field with no skeletons in its closet. Scientists easily confuse theories with facts or laws. Likewise, they can sometimes go about their research with mixed motives. Does the funding one receives for a given project ever hinge on the manner in which a scientist reports the facts? Does the prestige one might receive for a scientific breakthrough ever influence the way one conducts research? Hmm, I wonder. :-)
But there is something just as sinister here, which is the tendency for people to assume that science is the only valid (or at least the best) way to gain understanding. Thus, scientific proof is the only sure thing. Indeed, if it’s not observable or repeatable, we should always view it–whatever it is–with suspicion. The implication is that the (so-called) rationalistic use of our brains is the only pathway to truth. But, is it? I wonder if the scientist mentioned above does research before choosing an outfit to wear. Does he conduct research on the medicine he takes when he is ill, or does he trust on the research of others? Does he fail to express his love for his wife and children because he cannot prove that love scientifically? I hope not! The point is that science is not the only valid path to knowing, and everyday we give expression to this reality.
Please, don’t label me anti-scientific, for nothing could be more untrue. The bad scientists are all out to corrupt us and lead us astray mentality is something I truly despise. Indeed, it is often the religionists who are much more adept at deception. It’s just that we need to understand that we operate every day in spheres other than the scientific. Much of every day life is based on things like experience, faith, personal preference, intuition, cultural mores, practicality, what feels right, and a whole host of other things that are never–and indeed shouldn't/couldn't be–sifted through a scientific paradigm. That does not depreciate science. Not at all. But it should convince us that we all need to operate with more humility.
So, let’s keep up the scientific research. By all means, we must make use of science and remain leery of that which flies in the face of current findings. But, along side of science, we should remain alert to other factors, other avenues, other ways of coming to understand and properly interpret reality. Let the truth reign in any field. And let us make use of any legitimate pathways to understanding. Indeed, why not let various realities– scientific, intuitive, experiential, etc.–flow freely together? Why not allow truth in any given domain inform the other domains? What, you might ask, keeps them all together? What is the impetus behind our searching, thinking, and wondering? What is the all-permeating environment and the chief (spoken or unspoken) motivation in our efforts? A good starting point, I think, is faith. We operate in all of these realms by faith–informed or uninformed, demonstrated or mysterious–faith in some grandeur purpose. Christians merely locate this, ultimately, in a person, who is the object of faith and the embodiment of truth. In fact He is the way, the truth, and the life; we’d be wise, in all of our pursuits, to follow him.
Science, of course, can be a wonderful thing. Who can count the many improvements that have come about through scientific research? We reap the benefits each day. It is obvious, in other words, that science is a potentially wonderful tool. When we use the minds that God gave us, we are much, much better off than when we fail to use them; that much is abundantly clear.
What struck me about what this man’s claims, however, was the naive way he expected his hearers to respond to him. Perhaps, he himself is naive, simply assuming the superiority of his own views. Or, it may be that he has taken a reductionistic approach, squeezing everything into his personal paradigm, even when his views are inconsistent with the evidence. Then again, it could be that he doesn’t recognize his own biases, failing to understand that not all claims to being “scientific” are equally valid. At any rate, it’s stuff like this that frustrates me.+
To begin with, it is important to admit that the assertions of scientists are not of equal value. In fact some assumptions, though based on the best reading of the data available at a given time, must be altered or even abandoned. I think the best scientists already know this, for they are not out to wave a flag so much as they are on an on-going mission to uncover and make best sense of what is available to them. Theories, hypotheses, hunches–even the best of them–must take a back seat to truth.
Of course it is here that scientists, like all people, are just as liable to bias and susceptible to error. Science, in other words, is not some pristine field with no skeletons in its closet. Scientists easily confuse theories with facts or laws. Likewise, they can sometimes go about their research with mixed motives. Does the funding one receives for a given project ever hinge on the manner in which a scientist reports the facts? Does the prestige one might receive for a scientific breakthrough ever influence the way one conducts research? Hmm, I wonder. :-)
But there is something just as sinister here, which is the tendency for people to assume that science is the only valid (or at least the best) way to gain understanding. Thus, scientific proof is the only sure thing. Indeed, if it’s not observable or repeatable, we should always view it–whatever it is–with suspicion. The implication is that the (so-called) rationalistic use of our brains is the only pathway to truth. But, is it? I wonder if the scientist mentioned above does research before choosing an outfit to wear. Does he conduct research on the medicine he takes when he is ill, or does he trust on the research of others? Does he fail to express his love for his wife and children because he cannot prove that love scientifically? I hope not! The point is that science is not the only valid path to knowing, and everyday we give expression to this reality.
Please, don’t label me anti-scientific, for nothing could be more untrue. The bad scientists are all out to corrupt us and lead us astray mentality is something I truly despise. Indeed, it is often the religionists who are much more adept at deception. It’s just that we need to understand that we operate every day in spheres other than the scientific. Much of every day life is based on things like experience, faith, personal preference, intuition, cultural mores, practicality, what feels right, and a whole host of other things that are never–and indeed shouldn't/couldn't be–sifted through a scientific paradigm. That does not depreciate science. Not at all. But it should convince us that we all need to operate with more humility.
So, let’s keep up the scientific research. By all means, we must make use of science and remain leery of that which flies in the face of current findings. But, along side of science, we should remain alert to other factors, other avenues, other ways of coming to understand and properly interpret reality. Let the truth reign in any field. And let us make use of any legitimate pathways to understanding. Indeed, why not let various realities– scientific, intuitive, experiential, etc.–flow freely together? Why not allow truth in any given domain inform the other domains? What, you might ask, keeps them all together? What is the impetus behind our searching, thinking, and wondering? What is the all-permeating environment and the chief (spoken or unspoken) motivation in our efforts? A good starting point, I think, is faith. We operate in all of these realms by faith–informed or uninformed, demonstrated or mysterious–faith in some grandeur purpose. Christians merely locate this, ultimately, in a person, who is the object of faith and the embodiment of truth. In fact He is the way, the truth, and the life; we’d be wise, in all of our pursuits, to follow him.
+ This is why some make a distinction between science and scientism. Science investigates and seeks answers, while scientism exaggerates its claims and often imposes its presuppositions (which, by the way, are often philosophical in nature) on everyone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment