The Truth About Science is That There Really is No Truth At All

 

Brisnid Pardo

The Truth About Science is That There Really is No Truth at All

Picture yourself as one of Earth’s earliest humans; you live in a world with no civilization, no societies, no language, and no information about how things work. How would you explain what actions you take to survive? Humans, for the most part, are logical thinkers and most often feel the need to make sense of the world around them. Our perception of reality has played a significant role in shaping our society.

Take the concept of time, for instance. Timekeeping devices have been traced back to as early as 1500BC when Ancient Egyptians used sundials. Ancient Romans created an eight-day week that included a day dedicated to buying/selling items, this is described by Kenneth Grattan, a professor of scientific instrumentation at the University of London. Fast forward a bit to 1883, where the US national standard time was adopted to allow for railroads to maintain consistent schedules. From as far back as we can trace it, humans have been coming up with ways of creating structures in the world around them that has eventually evolved through social interactions and societal needs. Allen Bluedorn, a management scholar from the University of Missouri has written: “What any group of people think about time ends up being a result of them interacting with each other and socialization processes” (Keating 2013). Bluedorn believes that time is a social construct, and based on this thinking, history, and the way our society is built, science, as we know it, is a social construct as well.

Say you come home from a night out at 4am; Your roommate would say you got back home pretty late last night. Your roommate woke up at the same time to start their day but according to them, they work up extremely early. Everything is influenced by our perception. People are born into their own unique world, a world already set with beliefs, values, customs, culture. People understand what they know, and it is up to the individual to process the information around them and take what they believe is true or not. According to a study conducted by Daniel Kahan, a Yale professor of law and psychology, people better at math and reasoning are more likely to align their views with their ideology, even on unscientific stances. Fay Flam reports on this, stating that Americans “find scientists who agree with them”, in relation to their views. It’s not about whether specific research is deemed “fact” or not, it’s about whether it lines up with the views of an individual. If it doesn’t, there’s likely to be other research that will support the views that make sense to them. That information will be the information that they accept as fact.

On the other hand, individual perception can be overruled by something greater: the perception of specific groups and social circles. Perhaps a group of pro-life conservatives come across statistical data sets confirming the dangers of the lack of abortion services on women in the US. Certain individuals within the group may be concerned by the data but due to what they identify with and how firm the people that surround them are on their pro-life stance, they may continue to stay firm with their stance. Kahan reflects on this by stating, “…people are social creatures, and voicing the “wrong” political ideology can cost them friends, job opportunities, or a sense of community”. This is a perfect example of the phenomenon of groupthink, where even if there is science backing up important information, it may not be effective in swaying decisions that affect the lives of many. It’s much easier for individuals within a certain group or community to go along with what everyone else thinks; it means that they do not need to do as much thinking for themselves or face a truth that doesn’t make sense to them.

Science can never achieve permanent truth. Not because there isn’t the necessary research to back up theories, but because people can never all agree to accept it as fact: science is a social construct.

 

Works Cited:

·        Joshua Keating, Smithsonian Magazine, January 2013: Why Time is a Social Construct | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

·        Kenneth Grattan, The Conversation, May 2016: A brief history of telling time (theconversation.com)

·        Fay Flam, November 2016: “Question Authority, but Trust Science”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Scaling the Potential of Vertical Farming Going into 2025 and Beyond

Image
  Matthew P Kearney Scaling the Potential of Vertical Farming Going into 2025 and Beyond      Vertical farming may seem like something out of a futuristic movie, but they are very real in today’s agricultural industry. Vertical farming may promote a stronger relationship between urbanization and sustainable crop production. Based on recent innovations across agriculture and technology, vertical farming has the potential to revolutionize our current farming system. Through the development of vertical farming-based production lines, cities and otherwise unfarmable areas can be provided with fresh, local, and pesticide-free produce. Vertical farming and other adaptations of agriculture are not new ideas, but instead a historic and human process.      These technologies are ready to meaningfully address global food security through the technological and computational advancements in agriculture. Vertical farming has a promising future, which becomes a case...
Read more

Not Just Tired: The Darker Side of New Motherhood

  Vrinda Modi Not Just Tired: The Darker Side of New Motherhood “134, we got a suicidal,” the radio crackles. As my EMS crew heads to the apartment, I think back to my training, where there was little instruction on how to help those experiencing suicidal ideation. A middle-aged woman sits on the couch, visibly exhausted and cowering from the police officers surrounding her. Her husband, cradles an infant gently in his arms, his face a mix of concern and helplessness. I turn down my radio, sit beside her, and begin asking questions, careful not to sound interrogative. She confesses feeling suicidal since giving birth three weeks ago, her voice trembling with shame. She hasn’t slept properly in days. Although she has no plan to harm herself, her worsening thoughts drove her to call the suicide hotline. Her mother-in-law enters, coldly urging her to “wrap things up.”  The woman’s shame deepens when she refuses to go to the hospital, embarrassed by the stigma around postpartum de...
Read more

Molecules, Models, and Magic: The Exciting World of Computational Chemistry

Vrinda Modi I often spend time in a little cubicle in McLean in the freezing corporate cold wrapped in a blanket in the Hoboken summers sipping on free coffee from the office above. It almost always tastes like chalk, but the routine is so embedded in me. Hence, this is the perfect opportunity to talk a little more about my research in computational chemistry here at Stevens and the advances I expect in the next few years. This field excites me because it bridges my interest in chemistry with modern computing techniques, a powerful tool for advancing our understanding of chemical reactions and molecular interactions. This means we are a dry lab – running simulations on computers. No chemicals, no PPE, just models and algorithms. But why does computational chemistry exist in the first place, especially when chemistry is so rooted in physical matter? The answer is efficiency. Modeling molecules on a computer saves us from ordering chemicals, waiting for deliveries (a delay in chemistry t...
Read more