ADVERTISMENT
 
 
16 May 2008

What we may believe...

- 10 Dec 2007
By Andrey Kobilnyk   
Page 1 of 2

“Why are scientists and government not making decisions for the future in a manner more in harmony with the original and natural state of human beings.”

This was a question asked by an audience member to the panel at a conference I recently attended.

There seemed to be a moment of silence, then hesitation. Eventually one of the panel members answered that they believed that science and government were doing the best job that they could with the information at hand – and the conference moved on.

A robot for dentists

However, during a later break it seemed that the person who had raised this question was not satisfied with the answer they received. Being nosy, I overheard the entire conversation and couldn’t help but notice that when asked to define what an ‘original and natural state’ was for human beings, that there was no clear answer. It was referred to as ‘the way in which people lived in the past’, or ‘that which is common to all people’. Soon, it became clear that what was being discussed was either ‘opinion’ or ‘belief’ – but sadly without any validation.

Perhaps I’m being harsh. Or perhaps individuals who hold opinions such as these are rare. To be very clear, it’s not the specific belief which is objectionable, but rather, the insistence that it be addressed as genuine without any effort towards justification.

On another occasion, I recall an attempt to explain a point of view during a heated radio debate with a live studio audience. A participant firmly on one side of the argument exclaimed loudly ‘For those who agree with me, no explanation is necessary – and to those who don’t, no explanation is possible.’ Supporters of the speaker cheered and applauded in wild triumph. I listened in stunned silence. Here we had heard that holding a belief was simply a matter of doing so - that it was beyond explanation - and that those who did not share the belief simply could not be communicated with. A vast gulf had opened.

The process of scientific thought is sometimes not very comforting to people. A thorough examination of a subject can lead to uncomfortable facts being revealed – and perhaps even a belief or opinion, long and tightly held, is shaken.


Do scientists always react well when their beliefs are challenged? Read on to learn more....


 
Have your say
 
A wonderful evaluation of the problem between scientific objectivity and subjectivity. Regretfully, the line has become more skewed in recent years. The biggest problem with subjectivity rearing its head in science is that when people here the words "science" and "proof" and "supported by scientists" they automatically assume objectivity as a basis, therefore they rarely see a reason to question the validity of the statement. To question everything is the heart of progress, and this article helps to remind us of that. Thank you.
Virginia Murr

Posted by: mvir9 - 2007-12-11 - 09:34 GMT

Post new comment
Please copy the 5 symbols from this security code image into the box below to submit comment.

I agree to terms and conditions       
 
FirstScience.com

About | Privacy policy | Terms & conditions
© 1995-2008 All rights reserved

Download Science TV
Related articles
A New Form of Matter 2 - Fermionic Condensates
Researchers have discovered a weird new phase of matter called...
Where Physics and Mysticism don't meet
Are all things in the universe connected to each other? Can...
Try these books...
Understanding The Creation Evolution Controversy: A SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION CONSISTENT WITH BOTH MODERN SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE
$11.95
>More Info
NOVA - Galileo's Battle for the Heavens
$14.99
>More Info
Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives
$98.00
>More Info