Perhaps, persuasion, and possibility: The Truth of Science– Week 1 – Blog 1

“The machine will work when all the relevant people are convinced.” (pg. 12 – Science in Action)

I have a reputation of being known to looking at the negative side of things. I like to call it “attempting to look at all the possible positions on a spectrum of decision.” While I do consider the optimistic side of each decision, I also consider the opposite. I cannot explain why, that is just how God made me. In reviewing and contemplating the assigned readings for this week, a certain recollection continued to rear its head at me. My sophomore year I was enrolled in a public speaking class. There was a particular moment in which the teacher was explaining how to give an informative speech and what types of resources were considered “Acceptable” and “not acceptable” when selecting supporting evidence and references. Somehow, the class steered into a more philosophical discussion about determining “real” and “unreal” – i.e. “acceptable” and “not acceptable.” After a few minutes of discussion the teacher made a very conclusive statement aimed at ending the debate. These were her words: “Come on guys, we’re not talking about something that is found on Wikipedia, or some random source that is not from an academic background. We want ‘truth’ – you know stuff that’s based on science – real stuff.”

Immediately this statement struck me with the utmost force. I thought, “How dare she say that! Just because something in science is ‘true’ does not necessarily mean it is ‘true’! Science/the scientific community is comprised of human beings capable of mistakes and human beings that are, oftentimes, simultaneously linked to agendas (political, philosophical, moral, societal, doctrinal, etc.) and people (i.e. networks/webworks) who want to further or are considering furthering those agendas. This is not to mention the fact that scientific evidence can be used/manipulated/explained in a way that supports certain political, philosophical, moral, societal, and doctrinal views. When it comes down to it – based on the current paradigm of academia (I simplify it as ‘take everything as a grain of salt and think about it’) there is no such thing as objectivity which thus determines truth. All points of view – including academic/scientific views possess a foundational agenda – consciously stated or unconsciously upheld.” No I didn’t think of all that at that specific moment, these words came after years of continuous contemplation on this very matter. Nonetheless, during these contemplations I often felt like an outsider thinking the way that I thought about academic/scientific views, discoveries, and claims. One can only imagine my reaction when I read the introduction to Latour’s book.

Latour is onto something that I know (if taken seriously and given as much attention as contradicting views) is going to rattle the foundations of academia. For some reason it is extremely difficult to locate people in this world (especially in “open-minded” academia) to understand that scientific theories are just that – theories. Involved in formulating and “solidifying” these theories is a process that can be wrong or not all the way understood. Science cannot claim to just “be”. Findings have the possibility of being correct. But in order to achieve the status of being widely accepted as truth, it involves a process of persuading others/colleagues (preferably authorities in the field) to join a particular side which will serve to support that the claim is correct (I won’t even touch on the area of persuasion). Yet we know claims can be wrong from time to time as can authorities (pg. 6 – Science in Action) so just because a vast majority agrees on something doesn’t necessarily make it true. Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not.

http://mdubbleu.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/tree-of-knowledge.jpg