Sleepy Scientific Thoughts

(This is way too late for my poor little insomniac self who hasn't had a good night's sleep in four days. But I'll have a go anyway!)


2. Is the scientific process fundamentally flawed?

Certainly. At best science is flawed because humans are a part of the scientific process and humans are fallible. We make assumptions we shouldn't make, we are often blinded by bias, our very presence may disrupt the experiment, and even when we're at our best, we still make errors. At worst, we can't trust science at all because how do we really know that our senses are reliable? Or if reality even exists and can be studied?

4. Is science controllable? Should it be? If so, by whom?

No, science is not controllable. We like to think it is, but it is not. We can't control what other people do with science and we can't control what influences science (like personal bias and politics, for example). Ideally, I think we could control science, but the world is not an ideal place. If someone were to decide that there are certain things which people just shouldn't know or use, there would always be someone else who would break the rules and do it anyway. And that puts the rule-followers at a great disadvantage.

7. It used to be that being a scientist was a big deal! People respected scientists. People valued a scientist's opinion and input. There were few professions more noble than dedicating your life to the advancement of science - not even being a medical doctor was more important! Our modern perception of a scientist is a pasty colored white male with thick glasses, a pocket protector, and no social skills. No one wants their opinion, let alone respects their opinion. Even you, as a class, expressed distrust of NASA - the US's leading science machine - and doubt in the value of the science being conducted by the organization. What changed? Can you point to a specific era in time? Why do we listen more to Al Gore than we do to leading scientist in climatology, biology and environmental science?

I once heard a quote from a naturalist named Gerald Durrell regarding his reluctance to be educated which went something like ". . . I liked being half-educated; you were so much more surprised at everything when you were ignorant." I think that once people knew more of the natural world, they were less impressed with new discoveries. Once we no longer valued knowledge for the sake of knowledge and were more concerned with the practical, we began to view scientists differently. As to our willingness to pay more attention to Al Gore than to proper scientists, I think the reason is simply that people are stupid. We are simply more inclined to pay attention to people who are famous (or beautiful).

Well, the meds are kicking in, so I'm off to bed. Goodnight.