Science is the religion of today. Whether it be for the good of the people or their demise, that is the overarching modern view in the most powerful countries in the world. Traditional, theistic religion has been pushed out of its prevalent position from hundreds of years ago to where it is today. While many still cite religious texts or God as the ultimate cause or the answer, there is a growing number of people who cite science as their Bible. Science is accepted to be the truth, but should it be blindly followed?
Science is ultimately believed in upon faith. There is faith that certain measurements are correct, and there is faith that cause and effect exists. Some philosophers posit that this faith is ungrounded. For instance, David Hume argues that in addition to the impossibility of rational thinking among humans, there is no such thing as cause and effect. It is simply our minds projecting certain patterns onto the world around us. We see a ball, kick it, and it rolls forward. The kick was the cause, and the rolling forward was the effect. Simple, right? Hume says not exactly. We expect this to happen every single time because we have faith that objective cause and effect exists. The reality, according to Hume, is that past experiences condition us to expect certain results from certain actions. One way to consider this is how a dog may be trained. She sits and gets a treat—sitting equals a treat. Past experience of sitting and receiving a treat has conditioned her to sit on command with the expectation of getting the treat. This is a simple example, but the idea is very similar.Though this way of thinking (cause and effect doesn't exist?) is perhaps radical, can we disprove his theory? Is there a concrete way to prove that tomorrow, the sun will rise? Perhaps there is no reason to think it will not, but there is also no reason to think it will, either. So Hume says that while we might not be “crazy” to believe in knowledge, our belief is nonetheless ungrounded.
Further, Hume argues that the idea of objectively viewing anything is ridiculous. Before you say that’s insane, consider this: have you ever experienced anything outside of the flesh shell you call your human body? No—unless you know something the rest of us don’t. Everything is seen through a human “lens”, as it were. That would mean that we always have some bias by virtue of our human existence. While this doesn’t inherently mean everything we say is wrong or every claim is horribly prejudiced, it still does not negate the reality that true objectivity is but a far away dream. Hume argues in this way, but others have similar concerns about science. George Berkeley, for example, claims that the material world doesn’t exist. That would subsequently mean that science would be studying what did not, in reality, exist. It would be obsolete. If we can’t prove the existence of matter independently of our human shells—again similarly to Hume’s idea of the human lens—there is no way to be certain that there is such a thing as matter. We would like to think there is; so much of our world is contingent on matter’s existence.
Regardless, what does all this have to do with today’s world? Isn’t it a good thing that we know more about what we perceive as reality? Does it even matter if the world is real or not? We’re living in it, aren’t we? Well, what this all has to do with today is that some people blindly follow science, parading it as “the answer”. Put into perspective, science can’t even explain consciousness. I'm not saying that science should not be followed; I am trying to say that it should not be blindly followed. Science is far from perfect. While it certainly isn’t obsolete—at least we hope!—it is still something that should be taken with a grain of salt. Just because somebody makes a "scientific claim" does not mean it is true. While it would be foolish to disregard all science, there is a need to look at both sides of the situation. For example, simply accepting the “science” (that has since been debunked) that vaccines cause autism has caused and continues to cause many issues. There is more proof of the effectiveness and need for vaccines than there is for any connection to autism. Correlation does not always equal causation, of course, but patterns should be taken into account to ensure the best life for all lifeforms. This might fall into conflict with Hume’s ideas, but even when one cannot prove anything, it would still be more prudent to try to follow a path of less destruction. In a way, is that not the best we can do?
I do not want to say that one should not follow science—just do not follow it passively. This should not simply apply to just science, but all parts of life. Do not ignore your friend’s judgement of something, but do not take it on without a second thought either. Similarly, do not blindly follow the scientific data brought about in the COVID-19 crisis; science, after all, gives no normative claims, only facts. But it is up to each and every one of us to absorb information and make the best judgement based on that. If there are two options: go out or stay inside, and data shows widespread infections among those who go out, it would be reasonable to stay inside. When Trump says you should inject disinfectant, look at the data of the fatality of injecting something like that into your bloodstream. Science isn’t perfect, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. But today, we have to actively (not passively) follow it and make good judgements to minimize pain and death—especially now.
Science is ultimately believed in upon faith. There is faith that certain measurements are correct, and there is faith that cause and effect exists. Some philosophers posit that this faith is ungrounded. For instance, David Hume argues that in addition to the impossibility of rational thinking among humans, there is no such thing as cause and effect. It is simply our minds projecting certain patterns onto the world around us. We see a ball, kick it, and it rolls forward. The kick was the cause, and the rolling forward was the effect. Simple, right? Hume says not exactly. We expect this to happen every single time because we have faith that objective cause and effect exists. The reality, according to Hume, is that past experiences condition us to expect certain results from certain actions. One way to consider this is how a dog may be trained. She sits and gets a treat—sitting equals a treat. Past experience of sitting and receiving a treat has conditioned her to sit on command with the expectation of getting the treat. This is a simple example, but the idea is very similar.Though this way of thinking (cause and effect doesn't exist?) is perhaps radical, can we disprove his theory? Is there a concrete way to prove that tomorrow, the sun will rise? Perhaps there is no reason to think it will not, but there is also no reason to think it will, either. So Hume says that while we might not be “crazy” to believe in knowledge, our belief is nonetheless ungrounded.
Further, Hume argues that the idea of objectively viewing anything is ridiculous. Before you say that’s insane, consider this: have you ever experienced anything outside of the flesh shell you call your human body? No—unless you know something the rest of us don’t. Everything is seen through a human “lens”, as it were. That would mean that we always have some bias by virtue of our human existence. While this doesn’t inherently mean everything we say is wrong or every claim is horribly prejudiced, it still does not negate the reality that true objectivity is but a far away dream. Hume argues in this way, but others have similar concerns about science. George Berkeley, for example, claims that the material world doesn’t exist. That would subsequently mean that science would be studying what did not, in reality, exist. It would be obsolete. If we can’t prove the existence of matter independently of our human shells—again similarly to Hume’s idea of the human lens—there is no way to be certain that there is such a thing as matter. We would like to think there is; so much of our world is contingent on matter’s existence.
Regardless, what does all this have to do with today’s world? Isn’t it a good thing that we know more about what we perceive as reality? Does it even matter if the world is real or not? We’re living in it, aren’t we? Well, what this all has to do with today is that some people blindly follow science, parading it as “the answer”. Put into perspective, science can’t even explain consciousness. I'm not saying that science should not be followed; I am trying to say that it should not be blindly followed. Science is far from perfect. While it certainly isn’t obsolete—at least we hope!—it is still something that should be taken with a grain of salt. Just because somebody makes a "scientific claim" does not mean it is true. While it would be foolish to disregard all science, there is a need to look at both sides of the situation. For example, simply accepting the “science” (that has since been debunked) that vaccines cause autism has caused and continues to cause many issues. There is more proof of the effectiveness and need for vaccines than there is for any connection to autism. Correlation does not always equal causation, of course, but patterns should be taken into account to ensure the best life for all lifeforms. This might fall into conflict with Hume’s ideas, but even when one cannot prove anything, it would still be more prudent to try to follow a path of less destruction. In a way, is that not the best we can do?
I do not want to say that one should not follow science—just do not follow it passively. This should not simply apply to just science, but all parts of life. Do not ignore your friend’s judgement of something, but do not take it on without a second thought either. Similarly, do not blindly follow the scientific data brought about in the COVID-19 crisis; science, after all, gives no normative claims, only facts. But it is up to each and every one of us to absorb information and make the best judgement based on that. If there are two options: go out or stay inside, and data shows widespread infections among those who go out, it would be reasonable to stay inside. When Trump says you should inject disinfectant, look at the data of the fatality of injecting something like that into your bloodstream. Science isn’t perfect, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. But today, we have to actively (not passively) follow it and make good judgements to minimize pain and death—especially now.
Comments
Post a Comment