I have confidence that those with a sense of objectivity will respond favorably to the piece that I have written below. Let me begin by explaining what the key terms in the title mean to me:
“Science”, as I understand it, means the systematic, unbiased study of natural or social phenomena. These phenomena may have been previously explained by theorems, attempted to be explained by hypotheses, or undergoing initial investigations due to their relative newness;
“Nature” is taken to mean the inherent behavioral traits of an entity, be it a person, organization, or system;
“Answers” means solutions to problems or pressing questions;
“Obsolesce” means to render someone or something useless or antiquated.
Based on these definitions, I have to conclude that the answer is “no”.
The studies of natural and social phenomena are necessities for the advancement of society as well as the many subsystems that society depends on. The banking system, the medical system, as well as many other organizations relied upon by society that can be called to mind have all benefited from advances in science. Science has benefited mankind enormously when it has not been perverted by the immoral parts of the human psyche. We are quite aware of what happens when humans abuse the usefulness of devices such as explosives and firearms in mining and hunting, only to pervert them and use them as a means of causing destruction and murder.
Though we now live in an arguably more civilized age, science has also been perverted in more subtle ways. How so? For the purposes of brevity, I will discuss two important ways:
1. Science is being driven more and more by the forces of profit, and less and less by the forces of progress.
2. Agents of science (scientists, engineers etc.) have largely abandoned tackling the more basic problems that were initially posed to science and philosophy (the purpose of life, exactly how life came to be etc.), not because the demystification of these is more difficult, but rather because the evidence uncovered when attempting to elucidate answers does not agree with their own world view or that of their superiors and peers.
Firstly, let us consider profit being one of the driving forces behind science.
Please do not misinterpret the author of this article; profit is a magnificent notion: it is one of many indicators of the usefulness of a discovery and often provides incentive for the discovery to be made in a timely manner. Nowadays, it is too common for those supplying the capital to scientific research to see only the short term financial benefits of a particular scientific innovation.
Allow me the indulgence of putting aside the moral, political and social implications of the following: what if we spent only 50% of the money currently used in important ventures such as the Large Hadron Collider, the NASA missions and other current scientific endeavors and divert the left over funds to ventures such as low cost global telecommunication, universal health care, AIDS research and combating poverty in horridly underdeveloped countries? We would have sacrificed some monetary capital for the unknowable gains of human capital. In the years before and after the turn of the 20th century, humanity was fortunate to benefit from the minds of ones such as Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein and many others. Some of these came from middle to low income backgrounds. How many scientific geniuses have we let slip into the jaws of poverty, even death, simply because modern-day scientists are pressured to have more corporate concerns of late? In this day and age, scientists and their paymasters have unfortunately been concerned more for the shareholders of the organizations and less for the shareholders of humanity.
The second way that science has become perverted is through agents of science allowing their work to be compromised by their own philosophies and hypotheses of themselves, their employers or the peers of their community. This is immensely disappointing.
One of my childhood scientific heroes was Galileo. He was not concerned about the status quo, but, like Sherlock Holmes (another hero of mine, though fictional), he was concerned with discovering the truth and revealing the results of his investigations in an unbiased manner.
How would you feel if you were wrongly convicted of a crime, only to learn that the one private investigator capable of uncovering evidence that could exonerate you, biases his investigation to find you guilty due to his own opinions or the opinions of others? Indeed, would you not prefer that any law enforcement officer to be removed from his or her position if he or she behaved in such a manner? Yet, there are many scientists today who are pressured by society, peers or their tyrannical mortgage to publish results that do not agree with the evidence.
When I was first taught the scientific method, one of the things that struck me was the trial-and-error nature of scientific practice. If you conduct an experiment with a particular model in mind, but the collected data and subsequent conclusions disagree with the model, you have either made an error in your measurements, or your model needs to be discarded. After that, you would usually attempt to develop another model that explains the results that you had just found.
Recall Galileo mentioned above: one of his greatest acts of “heroism” was to defy both the religious authority of the Catholic Church and the scientific/philosophical authority of Aristotle by discrediting “geocentrism” (that is, the idea that the Planet Earth is the center of the universe – more can be read about this matter in this article found at www.wikipedia.org).
It is true that Galileo, under the pressure of the Church, eventually retracted his views. Nevertheless, scientists today possess greater freedom to publish their findings without bias. Furthermore, in a global society where their findings have the potential to wield enormous influence, it would be grossly unprofessional and unethical for scientists to shy away from presenting the facts in as clearly and truthfully to the public as possible. We have evolved into a knowledge-based society where each person has (or will at some point in their lifetime) assumed some level of intellectual specialization. As such, we depend on those whose specialization differs from ours to communicate their results and advice in a comprehensible and honest fashion. We expect nothing less from the doctors, lawyers and accountants that we turn to for advice. We respect their opinions though it may disagree with our preconceived notions. We respect their choice to incorporate newly discovered knowledge into their conclusions and we do not attempt to mar their reputation or punish them professionally when they have not given us reason to question their professionalism. Lastly, we generally do not assume that their religious persuasion (if they have one) will compromise the quality of their work.
Yet, modern day scientists such as Alister McGrath and Michael Behe have had their ideas of intelligent design largely discredited, not because they lack professionalism in their work, but because of the social climate in which they chose to make public proposals for intelligent design. Yet, the biologist Richard Dawkins has had his views readily accepted by the scientific community and its spectators. I find it puzzling that in his book “The Selfish Gene” (published 1976), Dawkins asserts in Chp. 2, page 15 that “at some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident” – this after starting the preface of the 1976 edition of his book with: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science.”
I should have closed the book after reading the preface, but then I would have missed out on some interesting reading. Perhaps I would have wholly believed his book’s arguments if I did not have an appreciation for the statistical improbability of the emergence of his replicator molecule. Regretfully for him, I depend on practicing scientists for objectivity based on facts that are not being blended with “science fiction” or language that mimics it. Suggestion or hypotheses not supported by data simply will not suffice. Yet, the social climate of society has allowed Dr. Dawkins to be, for the most part, regarded favorably as a celebrity of sorts for this and other similarly themed work of his.
Though I doubt I will be convinced of all of Dr. Dawkins’ views in my lifetime, I genuinely appreciate one thing about him: the clarity with which he presents his views. Most scientists would do well to learn from his method of communication. His undeniable charisma aside, Dr. Dawkins articulates his beliefs with a simplicity that very few of his colleagues in science have yet to master. This is not to say that he dilutes his message or alters his underlying arguments; he simply has mastered the way of making advanced science more accessible to anyone showing interest in his work through his ingenious use of illustration and analogy.
Thorough consideration would make for a difficult choice between “yes” and “no” in responding to the question posed in the debate title. However, the facts are clear: unbiased study, systematic study has the potential to benefit both the researcher and all of humanity; the answers that are revealed are valued and usually lead to more questions, thereby renewing the need for such study and continually keeping science current. It is when scientific experts deviate from their written (and unwritten) ethical guidelines for the wrong reasons that the search for scientific answers real scientific answers begins to be undermined. As a result, obsolescence then slowly creeps in and usurps innovation.
