Monday, 20 February 2012

Pop: The problem with science

I do a university course which is entirely science based and study medicine in my spare time. For all intents and purposes from the outside I am a scientist. But I hate science with a passion, it disgusts me. And before I continue let me clarify that I feel exactly the same about all religion. Not everybody conforms to one or the other.
The groundings of science are fantastic, belief in observable data unless there is evidence to the contrary. If new information appears theories are revised and altered. It sounds perfect. 

The problem is that this doesn’t happen. If new information appears scientists stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'la la la' until they can bury the information. At the same time anything declared as a theory will have the word theory squirreled away as soon as possible. The information just becomes fact to base more theories on, just like gravity. Gravity has never been properly proven, it is still the theory of gravity. But if you said gravity is a lie or unproven most people would laugh. 

This problem with science comes from the people who preach it. The arrogance that excludes from a large proportion of scientists is not only closed minded but it makes them uncomfortable to listen to and difficult to believe. I have spoken to many people who believe that scientists are more evolved that those who hold their faith in other areas. Not only is that arrogant but it directly attempts to place one group of people above others. It makes science a directly elitist society where you are subclass if your beliefs don’t fit with theirs.
Science is the baby of philosophy, it directly spawns from the same thirst for knowledge and love of learning that people like myself hold dear. But although that is still what it claims to have at its heart, the study of science seems to have deviated further towards superiority. 

Each country ties to be the first to discover something, scientist in laboratories fight for recognition. The more information that a scientist gathers the more it has to hold over religious people. They attempt to disprove God rather than discover how we came to be.
Essentially science has become an opportunity for a flaming war with those who follow religion, you can see that wherever you go on the internet. ‘Atheists’ have kidnapped science and use it just as a way to force out excess rage. The following of atheism basically just means ‘I don’t like Christians’ which I am sure must be frustrating to true atheists who’s system of beliefs (or lack thereof) is being swarmed by angry ragetrolls. 

Science requires large amounts of faith itself in order to function. We separate it out into another area from religion but there is the same lack of evidence for both and they both have the same goal. To explain the origin of existence. 

It may seem obvious that science is absolute fact, that is after all what we are told from an early age unless you are brainwashed the other way by a faith school. But science accepts all its knowledge comes from observation and that is the very reason that its truth comes into question. To accept that science is absolute fact requires acceptance that human beings are flawless. Science can’t be fact if we get it wrong. Sometimes, it is not something we know for certain because human beings mess up. Our senses lie, our experiments may be inadequate or our correlations wrong. Science alters based on evidence; it is the best that we know at the time. 

The arrogance comes from scientists too ignorant to realise this, the people at the very top understand it but those in the middle who cannot advance are stuck by the fact that they don’t understand their own profession. 

Whether there is a God or not doesn’t matter, the point is that the reason for our existence is something we don’t know. There is only one theory offered and that is the existence of a higher power. There is no evidence for and no evidence against but we have nothing else. All that the arguments do is stall our studies into finding out the answer and the arrogant ‘we know better than you’ attitude certain scientists hold just limits or chances even more. If you are so closed minded that you can’t even comprehend ideas such as gravity may be flawed then what kind of scientist can you be? All theories should be questioned constantly, that used to be one of the base values of science. And now because this idea of constant testing and checks has been lost the answers to much bigger questions are going to be lost. To be ground breaking you have to think outside the box and by thinking of science as fact you not only lock yourself in but you lock the next generation in even tighter. 

"Science adjusts what it finds to fit with it's current view, rather than what it should be doing which is to adjust it's view to encompass what it finds." Blip

Pop *signature placeholder* 


  1. Eh, I'll agree only little. Just like anything, there are people whom are good and bad at their field of interest. There are good scientific thinkers and poor ones.

    Science is meant to be a process that attempts to remove human subjectivity, but unfortunately its still run by humans so its not 100%.

    I think science can be shown to be vastly different than other schools of thoughts in the following way. The scientific method became prominent in the middle of the last millennium and we went from storing human bodies in our drinking water and wondering why disease was so prevalent to flying transport machine, medicine, GPS, relativity and flying to the moon.

    Science works and is not just a philosophy. I am even typing this up on my computer and sending on the internet. This came from science.

    There are some very terrible scientists, but there are also great ones whom can use science to truly probe reality. I see that this was written before the confirmation of the Higgs boson, but that is a story where science is truly prevailing.

    Poor science is philosophy, good science is a tool. Our interpretation of what the tool brings can sometimes be poor too. It's not perfect, but I disagree that it is at all similar to faith unless you are just talking to someone whom believes in scientists without being able to DO science.

    1. Thanks for the comment Robert.

      In this post, Pop wasn't attacking science on general principle and certainly wasn't going against the practical side of science. Rather, she was discussing how the core truths of science are just as shaky as religion.

      You say science works and that proves it but that is just as subjective as anything else. For example, you say that science allows humans to fly because you have built a plane and can observe its effect. But what if a christian saw the plane and said that God made it fly? You might laugh and direct scorn at them but nonetheless that means you have one observation and two theories to explain it and no ways to separate your individual opinions from subjectivity.

      This post takes an aggresive stance, moreso, towards the people that misuse science as a weapon of truth. The modern crusades, if you will.

      As for your last thought: " It's not perfect, but I disagree that it is at all similar to faith unless you are just talking to someone whom believes in scientists without being able to DO science."

      Well, actually I suppose you're right there. It's people who don't truly understand science, can't enact scientific principles that are the problem because even though they have no true experience in the field, they still blindly follow it through faith alone. It's people like that that have corrupted the application of science.



Please tell us what you think and don't be afraid to be honest, that's what we're here for.