Vaccines. Evolution. Santa Claus. What do these three things have in common? I don't believe in any of them (well, Saint Nick was a real guy). A large percentage of you have already written off anything I'm about to say. A few may agree with me. The rest of you might just be intrigued enough to continue reading (before I get to my main point, let me clarify that vaccines do work, I just don't think we should indiscriminately give them to everyone; also, I believe in microevolution, not macroevolution).
Anyway, regardless of how you feel about vaccines and evolution (and, hey, I know some of you still believe in Santa Claus), there is an underlying issue on which we should all agree--the limitations of science (science, of course, is not a concrete thing, but I will personify it here, as that is normal usage in our day). Science, by definition, acknowledges its own limitations. It uses them as its motivation. It exists because of its limitations. So when an issue is being debated, we cannot simply say that science knows this or has proven that. Science adapts. Science is open to being proven incorrect. Now, this is not to say that nothing can be conclusively proven. It is to say, however, that we should be extremely cautious in making the assumption that something has been conclusively proven. Many established "facts" have been proven incorrect. Many school textbooks still teach concepts that were proven false decades ago.
For some reason, we want to be able to say that science has prove thing conclusively. There are probably many factors involved. We love certainty. We need something concrete on which to stand. Black and white are so much easier. We don't want to have to think about the nuances of life. All of these play a role, but there's also an element of pride involved. This is coming through quite strongly in our day. People used to take pride in being traditional and well-established. Now we take pride in being "progressive" (which is, of course, defined by what one views as progress). We take great pride in the fact that we are no longer bound by the ideas of our forefathers. This is painfully evident in our attitude towards science. Science knows everything. Science is unquestionable. Science, which is really just a name we give the consensus (which does not always exist and is sometimes a small majority) of individual scientists and scientific establishments, speaks, and we listen. Those who have no expertise in a field of scientific study seem to be more confident in science than scientists themselves. As a culture, no, as a species, we take great pride in being the generation that has everything figured out. We assume our generation is the most advanced. We assume that our technology has never been rivaled. We assume that our brains are the most developed in history. We assume that we are more, better, etc.
Whatever the reason might be, when we accept the word of science without reserve, at that point, science becomes religious. Many people treat origins and similar topics as "science vs. religion" types of debates. That's not an accurate representation. On one hand, Christianity and other religions regularly employ scientific methods and data. On the other hand, "science" regularly makes assumptions that are religious. Naturalism, for instance, assumes that God does not exist. How can you claim to disprove God's existence through unbiased interpretation of empirical data when your interpretive framework assumes that God does not exist? So we see that every worldview has some level of circular reasoning. My subjective starting point is God's existence and the truth of His revelation. That will shape my conclusions. If your starting point is that God does not exist and that His revelation is fraudulent, then that will color your conclusions, as well. My point, however, is not about interpretive method. My point is that people trust science because, in part, they assume that it has objectively proven all that says it has. It just deals with the facts, right? What they don't realize is that it ain't always so objective and it ain't always so conclusive, the latter being compromised because of the former.
And it is here that I think we should all agree. Can we stop pretending that contemporary scientific findings are conclusive? Even the most concrete "facts" are subject to modification. We know many things, but until we know everything we cannot say we know anything exhaustively. Should we, then, be anymore certain than our grandparents were? We laugh at their misconceptions, but how many do we have? We'll never know. Our ideas will not necessarily withstand the test of time any better than theirs. In fact, scientific discoveries are speeding up as technology progresses, so we will probably be proven wrong on many things more quickly than past generations. At the end of the day, our understanding of ourselves and the world around us will be very different in 100 years. An understanding and acceptance of that should permeate all discussions of science.
So, how will vaccines be viewed in 500 years? A sure thing or an amusing anecdote in mankind's history? How will Darwinian evolution be viewed in 1000 years? We, of course, will not live to find out. When we argue about these types of things, let's bear in mind not only our own preconceived ideas, but also the limitations of our knowledge, both corporately and individually.
Anyway, regardless of how you feel about vaccines and evolution (and, hey, I know some of you still believe in Santa Claus), there is an underlying issue on which we should all agree--the limitations of science (science, of course, is not a concrete thing, but I will personify it here, as that is normal usage in our day). Science, by definition, acknowledges its own limitations. It uses them as its motivation. It exists because of its limitations. So when an issue is being debated, we cannot simply say that science knows this or has proven that. Science adapts. Science is open to being proven incorrect. Now, this is not to say that nothing can be conclusively proven. It is to say, however, that we should be extremely cautious in making the assumption that something has been conclusively proven. Many established "facts" have been proven incorrect. Many school textbooks still teach concepts that were proven false decades ago.
For some reason, we want to be able to say that science has prove thing conclusively. There are probably many factors involved. We love certainty. We need something concrete on which to stand. Black and white are so much easier. We don't want to have to think about the nuances of life. All of these play a role, but there's also an element of pride involved. This is coming through quite strongly in our day. People used to take pride in being traditional and well-established. Now we take pride in being "progressive" (which is, of course, defined by what one views as progress). We take great pride in the fact that we are no longer bound by the ideas of our forefathers. This is painfully evident in our attitude towards science. Science knows everything. Science is unquestionable. Science, which is really just a name we give the consensus (which does not always exist and is sometimes a small majority) of individual scientists and scientific establishments, speaks, and we listen. Those who have no expertise in a field of scientific study seem to be more confident in science than scientists themselves. As a culture, no, as a species, we take great pride in being the generation that has everything figured out. We assume our generation is the most advanced. We assume that our technology has never been rivaled. We assume that our brains are the most developed in history. We assume that we are more, better, etc.
Whatever the reason might be, when we accept the word of science without reserve, at that point, science becomes religious. Many people treat origins and similar topics as "science vs. religion" types of debates. That's not an accurate representation. On one hand, Christianity and other religions regularly employ scientific methods and data. On the other hand, "science" regularly makes assumptions that are religious. Naturalism, for instance, assumes that God does not exist. How can you claim to disprove God's existence through unbiased interpretation of empirical data when your interpretive framework assumes that God does not exist? So we see that every worldview has some level of circular reasoning. My subjective starting point is God's existence and the truth of His revelation. That will shape my conclusions. If your starting point is that God does not exist and that His revelation is fraudulent, then that will color your conclusions, as well. My point, however, is not about interpretive method. My point is that people trust science because, in part, they assume that it has objectively proven all that says it has. It just deals with the facts, right? What they don't realize is that it ain't always so objective and it ain't always so conclusive, the latter being compromised because of the former.
And it is here that I think we should all agree. Can we stop pretending that contemporary scientific findings are conclusive? Even the most concrete "facts" are subject to modification. We know many things, but until we know everything we cannot say we know anything exhaustively. Should we, then, be anymore certain than our grandparents were? We laugh at their misconceptions, but how many do we have? We'll never know. Our ideas will not necessarily withstand the test of time any better than theirs. In fact, scientific discoveries are speeding up as technology progresses, so we will probably be proven wrong on many things more quickly than past generations. At the end of the day, our understanding of ourselves and the world around us will be very different in 100 years. An understanding and acceptance of that should permeate all discussions of science.
So, how will vaccines be viewed in 500 years? A sure thing or an amusing anecdote in mankind's history? How will Darwinian evolution be viewed in 1000 years? We, of course, will not live to find out. When we argue about these types of things, let's bear in mind not only our own preconceived ideas, but also the limitations of our knowledge, both corporately and individually.
Comments
Post a Comment