A new science is upon us; one that differs from the tried and trusted science that has taken us so far. Science, as it has been defined by many great minds that have given us the modern “miracles” that we all enjoy today, is in the almost invisible process of being re-configured.
Traditionally, when the knowledge gained piece by piece by following the exact and demanding standards set by the scientific method saves a life, or explains anomalies it is not science but a “miracle”. Or, when the scientific conclusions do not further the power of politicians, it is subject to political editing and censorship. And so it goes that science, doing all the work, gets very little glory and must be politically correct. When the ‘jaws of life’ cut a survivor out of a mangled car, it was the “hand of God” that saved them, not sound engineering and rational understanding. When the NASA scientists come to sound conclusions concerning global warming, politicians take it upon themselves to “interpret” the data to conform to conservative policy. Of course, these “miracles” and political limitations have been understood by most to be simply the façade of authority.
Now, however, from the new creationist’s to latest of Bush’s freshman politicos, the ability for the non-scientific to define and decide what modern science is and how it is best used is becoming the accepted norm.
Science is being redefined to fit everyone’s needs, desires and wishes so its validity must be conferred by authorities other than the scientific method in order to be perceived as sound. The Vatican recently released a new list of “new sins”, for example, that included scientific subject matter. Evidently God got it wrong the first time and so Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican's number two man, set things right "(Within bioethics) there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control," he said. The church moralizes science and in doing so believes that it has the right and the power to curb and curtail scientific progress. Science is “difficult to predict and control” but without the scientific method it is impossible. This is not a new angle. While it is to be applauded that the Catholic church has finally “accepted the truth of scientific research in regard to the environment” (just like it “accepted” that the earth was not the center of the universe), it seems that science is not to be accepted until the church ordains it certain.
According to Reuters, “Pope Benedict has made several strong appeals for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate change had become gravely important for the entire human race.” This is a nice feather in the cap of science, validating it evidently! Now that the Pope is onboard, climate change must be an actual reality by God’s law no less.
In the USA, as hard as it may be to believe in other parts of the world, scientists are forced to waste precious time on ridiculous and dangerous advances by religion to redefine science to accept its newest creation theory, intelligent design. While this is bad enough, what is the underlying threat is the same attitude towards biological evolution that intelligent design advocates have is no different than the attitude of the Catholic church towards science: it seems that science is incomplete without religion. George Bush adheres to this kind of new science. This is not more evident than his recent “change of mind” (together with the Pope) concerning global warming. After years of fighting almost any changes in America’s environmental attitude, claiming that global warming is at best a questionable hypothesis, and continually pointing out that the science was incomplete, Bush now is certain that global warming is ‘real’. This comes after at least one count of one of his minions changing scientific data to fit the administration’s politics. This is not only important because of the legal and ethical ramifications, but because it is a sign of this administration’s (and our society’s) attitude towards science. It is highly doubtful that Bush made his decision based on more scientific data etc… given that Bush has little or no scientific knowledge(or any other knowledge for that matter).
In other words, according to many people who adhere to religious or certain political points of view, the new science is something that can be reinterpreted/accepted by people with no or little scientific understanding based on other criteria than good science. This point seems to go unnoticed among religious pundits and their followers. But, the fact remains that like history often is, science is seen as something that can be redefined to fit our wishes and wants. And like history, doing so dilutes the strength and validity of science. As long as people continue to pay homage to religious leaders and give respect to baseless and antiquated ways of thinking, then the redefinition of science to fit society’s desire and traditions rather than following a strict method of justification over time will always be possible.The new science, ironically enough is no different than the science of the middle-ages, when it was forced by the sword to adhere to religious edicts. I have pointed out in earlier essays that while it is true that much science was done in ‘the name of God’ by catholic monks, that those monks were limited to one conclusion: that God existed and creation was a fact. As long as their scientific enquiry adhered to those simple principles, they were free to be as skeptical as they felt need to be until the absurdity of their ideas became too much. Perhaps it was the absurdity of the Catholic Church’s position on climate change and its continued absurd view on the fetuses (abortion etc…) that is the basis for the Pope’s decisions regarding climate change and bio-research? The new science is, by definition, ‘new’ because it is more limited rather than infinitely broader in its scope than the “old” science.
The new science, as recently defined by bodies such as the Bush administration, and traditionally defined by religion, differs from its predecessor by its limitations and its ability to be molded by forces outside of the scientific method. The new science is no longer limited by severe definitions of knowledge, justification, experimentation, and abilities to predict consistently outcomes that are inferred by credible premises no matter what those conclusions may be. Rather science must now be validated by faith and deemed politically acceptable before it is to be accepted as true knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment