Should Confidence in Science Waver?

We have all fallen victim to it. Blindly accepting one’s word as “fact” without questioning or fact-checking. It is human nature to believe the things we hear — especially when being told by sources that are deemed trustworthy. We have been raised in a classroom setting where teachers are “all-knowing” and are infallible — do not challenge their word, for that is disrespectful. As someone who has grown accustomed to this societal norm, a person of authority could tell me a blasphemous statement, and I would believe it. Water is clear, but the ocean is blue. That is because of the reflection of the sky on the ocean’s surface. No. Questions. Asked. 

After reading the article “Science Isn’t Broken” by Christie Aschwanden, my feelings towards science, the news, and social media are scattered. While social media and the news are extremely effective tools for spreading information, who is doing the fact-checking? This article shed light on the issue that scientific columns are being published without the proper qualifications; fraudulent data, lack of research, and contradictory data. How are readers, such as myself and my peers, supposed to determine the accuracy of these articles?


Ashwanden writes that “confidence in science may have taken a hit lately” due to different illegitimate headlines and the ability for scientists to manipulate their data to prove a hypothesis, but also goes on to say that science is the “best tool we have” for understanding and reaching a truth. I agree with the importance of science and its capacity to explain the world we live in, however, I fear money-hungry egos pose a threat to advances in knowledge. 


This article goes on to explain the erroneous nature of science and the fact that it is constantly being self-corrected. This is an extremely important step in scientific discoveries; if no one questioned the shape of the earth, who’s to say we would not still believe the world was flat? Such a breakthrough was due to challenging the “truth” and gathering evidence to disprove the facts. As a result of this misconception, I understand the contempt and uncertainty that some people hold towards science, however, science has to start somewhere; mistakes and false beliefs are what drive curiosity and the desire to find an answer. 


In Patrick Collison and Michael Nielsen’s article “Science is Getting Less Bang for Its Buck,” they raise the question of whether we are funneling too much money into research that is not providing results. After reading the paper, I came to the conclusion that it is not the fact that scientists are less intelligent than in the past; instead, the world has become exceedingly complex. Past scientists have discovered the baseline and laid the groundwork for today’s scientists to uncover the more difficult unknowns. As advances are being made and technologies developed, we will have the tools needed to come to understand more of the world we live in. 


Science is like digging a hole at the beach: the beginning steps are easy, but once the sand gets tougher, your hands are not going to be as effective as a shovel. It’s not that you would not have been able to dig the same hole with just your hands, it just would have taken an exponentially longer amount of time. The point where you hit the water is the point of scientific discovery in this analogy — you just need time and the right tools to get there. So, in response to “Science is Getting Less Bang for Its Buck,” the money being shoveled into research is not worthless. Scientists will reach water again, they just need time. 


Michella Chiaramonte



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Scaling the Potential of Vertical Farming Going into 2025 and Beyond

Not Just Tired: The Darker Side of New Motherhood

Knot Your Average Problem: How do Tongue Ties Impact Oral Myofunctional Health?