Science is simply observation, probability analysis, pattern recognition and discovery. By that definition all people are scientists on some level. We discover that if we drop a glass from height on a hard surface it will, in all probability, shatter. If the action is repeated we discover that, all things being equal, it will probably shatter again. A simple scientific discovery has been made, albeit without the formalities of academic rigour, control, scope, method and conclusion. It is nonetheless scientific in a broad sense.
Beyond our - quantitatively debatable - array of senses, technology can be used to improve our observational capabilities and thus allow a greater degree of scope for observation, pattern recognition, probability analysis, and discovery. The 'facts' that are discovered within the scope of our observational capabilities hold varying degrees of certainty or probability. That is, until new data is observed which potentially challenges the probability of any current observations or discoveries. The phenomena of shifting parameters or paradigms within which scientific facts are considered objectively true is known as the 'half-life' of scientific facts; the time it takes for a new or novel data to affect scientific discovery.
Again, people are all scientists to some extent, on some level. Whether one accepts the broader claims of science, or not, - ie. dogma - it is nonetheless impossible to remove oneself from the ability to reason which is derived from human sensory interaction with the physical world.
A 'scientific fact' - a discovery that has been made through rigorously reviewed and systematically reasoned methods - is a truth about how the physical world acts and reacts in particular situations. Scientists know this and realise, possibly more than most people, that their discoveries usually raise at least as many questions as they answer.
However, given certain parameters, actions and reactions are at least temporarily proven within particular circumstances - at least until they reach their hypothetical half-life.
With the knowledge provided through scientific discoveries, society apparently progresses. But what exactly progresses?
My recent thoughts about the relatively recent exponential expansion of science led me to consider the importance of the pedagogy and interpretation of science, and the ideological context which the broader culture of science constructs.
Science and academic output is generally, and often necessarily, written in quite esoteric, or narrow and obscure terms. This is not easily accessible to the general public. It is considered either abstract and boring, or over detailed and meaningless. Nonetheless, scientific discovery is essential.
The inaccessibility of academic science to the general public raises various issues; do mass media organisations act effectively as an intermediary through which scientific discovery is sufficiently explained to the public; if they don't then what function does democracy serve in the progression of science where the profit driven demands of organisations push scientific progression in particular directions.
Scientists frequently decry mass media as providing a poor representation of scientific findings and ideas. The criticism that is levelled at the mass media is often justified when selling a sensational or attractive story outweighs presenting a scientific, socially, economically, psychologically etc... beneficial thesis (which might often bore a person to tears anyway). However, scientific language, as mentioned earlier, is often impenetrable and what is the point in science for the benefit of society if society doesn't understand what is happening.
Mass media organisations play a crucial interpretive role here. However, the media's obligations and responsibility must lie in interpreting the socio-psychological, economic and cultural benefit of what science is producing. This in turn puts onus on the scientific community to represent themselves in a manner which media can usefully interpret for public benefit. Individual journalists who espouse the ideals of investigative journalism and see journalism as existing for the benefit of society present significant findings everyday, many of which do benefit society.
This leads me to my next line of thought. Idealism in journalism mixed with the power of large scientific organisations - pharmaceutical organisations for instance - can create a culture whereby findings are presented through a lens of organisational power. This power can have adverse effects on scientific output which affects the potential benefits of science for the public, in turn affecting the public's broader understanding of science. This phenomena has been revealed, by Ben Goldacre (http://www.badscience.net/) amongst others, to skew the public's and the scientific community's understanding of science. It essentially corrupts science and defies logic and reason in lieu of profit and power. The form that this corruption takes ranges from subtle coercion of researchers to blatantly disregarding or burying scientific findings.
Of course some people benefit from this process but the idealistic utilitarianism of science gets broken down to that which makes profit.
It is as much the scientists responsibility as it is the journalists to make sure that their work is represented coherently and in a manner which respects transparency and informed utilitarianism. Scientists in all fields, from social-science to theoretical physics, have a responsibility to understand the broader purpose and implications of their research.
Therefore, perhaps the point is to strive to reduce the scope of unintended consequences, and to be socially aware enough of context so as to not have scientific purpose obscured by what could be called the Manhattan Project effect, i.e. the compartmentalisation of knowledge.
I will conclude here with a quote from the late philosopher Michael Foucault:
"People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does."
Mass media organisations play a crucial interpretive role here. However, the media's obligations and responsibility must lie in interpreting the socio-psychological, economic and cultural benefit of what science is producing. This in turn puts onus on the scientific community to represent themselves in a manner which media can usefully interpret for public benefit. Individual journalists who espouse the ideals of investigative journalism and see journalism as existing for the benefit of society present significant findings everyday, many of which do benefit society.
This leads me to my next line of thought. Idealism in journalism mixed with the power of large scientific organisations - pharmaceutical organisations for instance - can create a culture whereby findings are presented through a lens of organisational power. This power can have adverse effects on scientific output which affects the potential benefits of science for the public, in turn affecting the public's broader understanding of science. This phenomena has been revealed, by Ben Goldacre (http://www.badscience.net/) amongst others, to skew the public's and the scientific community's understanding of science. It essentially corrupts science and defies logic and reason in lieu of profit and power. The form that this corruption takes ranges from subtle coercion of researchers to blatantly disregarding or burying scientific findings.
Of course some people benefit from this process but the idealistic utilitarianism of science gets broken down to that which makes profit.
It is as much the scientists responsibility as it is the journalists to make sure that their work is represented coherently and in a manner which respects transparency and informed utilitarianism. Scientists in all fields, from social-science to theoretical physics, have a responsibility to understand the broader purpose and implications of their research.
Therefore, perhaps the point is to strive to reduce the scope of unintended consequences, and to be socially aware enough of context so as to not have scientific purpose obscured by what could be called the Manhattan Project effect, i.e. the compartmentalisation of knowledge.
I will conclude here with a quote from the late philosopher Michael Foucault:
"People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does."
No comments:
Post a Comment