We may be able to agree on all of the above. The mere fact that a scientist can decipher a sickness and find a cure, or at least sometimes, is extremely awe provoking and undeniably beautiful.
But what happens when science goes too far? Are we suppose to understand and manipulate Nature? A cure for a disease-- great! (Or is it?) What happens when the application of nuclear bombing happens? Humans through the use of science have created at their fingertips tools of destruction that would not otherwise exist. I don't mean to bash science, in fact quite the contrary. Science is extraordinary. I simply mean to express that it shouldn't remain in the realm of beauty (as suggested by Chandrasekhar). Awe provoking. Inspiring. Extraordinary. Beautiful. Dangerous. Powerful. Science is all of these and more.
What about the science discoveries that have created the most dependent, ignorant and lazy bunch of humans? Are we not or are we getting close to that movie Idiocracy?!
As Sagan eloquently puts it, "We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements-- transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting-- profoundly depend on science and technology."
Ironically, inventions from smart people, like single cup coffee makers, motorized ice cream cones (Yep- you heard right; you know longer have to lick around your own cone....it will spin around for you!), and a butter stick (no need for a butter knife anymore...just stick that butter in a plastic tube for easy use!) to name just a few, have taken away the need for much thought when it comes to basic survival and skill. It's quite a slippery slope. What seems initially incredible creates the lazy and/or ignorant.
Another problem is the insurmountable trust that some have with science. Sagan informs us that science has a 'room for error' that we all just mutually understand and respect. This is true, but only for those of us who actually know it. Many people walk around trusting completely in science. Now this obviously isn't Science's fault. Yet it is us who created science and it is us becoming more dependent on it. There is room for trust, belief, hope and use for science. I just mean to say that this 'bar for error' that Sagan talks about is extremely important and unfortunately not understood by all.
Lewis Wolpert simply states, "science often explains the familiar in terms of the unfamiliar." This is another view that is quite appropriate. It seems often that science is trying to explain the unfamiliar through discovering and inventing. All too often though, it is trying to explain in unfamiliar terms, with a 'new' label applied to that which is already familiar. It's the 'labels' that we find to be important. The 'familiar' which is around us we get, we are around it, feel it, see it, but to explain it: That's what science is doing.
So what is science? An ever evolving map of that which is around us. A map detailed with the entire picture. The good....the bad... and the ugly.........and beautiful.
I coudn't help but think of some other bad effects of science as I read your blog. Isn't it interesting how many people get diagnosed with cancer these days? The number is continually increasing. Yet, people who die of the flu, small pox, leprosy, and other types of diseases do not. In my opinion, I think it is science that has saved so many lives from these diseases. BUT, I also believe that it is because of these miracles in science that we have the other issues, such as cancer. For example, a couple hundred years ago, it was survival of the fittest. All of the people who had appendicitis, the flu, and other issues would have died at a young age. They would not have had the opportunity to reproduce as they do today. Now days, people who get those sicknesses can survive and reproduce. The sickly genes have had the ability to spread throughout the world. Are these the people who get cancer? Isn't that a repercussion of the beautiful science? Like you, I do not wish to slam science, but I do think that while much good is happening on one side of things, there are always hidden consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that you have chosen to take the darker take from Sagan's writing and I chose to focus on the part about beauty and truth. In the end wasn't he just saying as he wrote "Science is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge. It's just the best we have." He understands that science can push us closer "to that movie Idiocracy," but isn't that also a product of our cultural values and materialist tendencies?? Sure the field of plastic surgery can allow people to make plastic barbie dolls of themselves, but what about when that same plastic surgeon fixes a child's cleft pallet or gives them skin grafts to fix their burned skin? We need to be able to separate what is science and what is commercially done with the product of that science. Also to Mitchell, I think your idea that the people with "sickly genes" are the ones that get cancer and suffer other disabilities is appalling! Do you think we would be better off without Stephen Hawkings or Temple Grandin??? We need to remember that science is not an independent entity onto itself but is only as good as the people in control of it.
ReplyDeleteI think that it should go without saying that science isn't an independent entity. It is a tool of humans. The fact that we can understand the negative directions in which science can take us and those directions that are positive, that is based on judging what is good and what is not. Science alters, and the fact that people are given the power to alter is what is not comforting. So it may seem ideal to fix a child's cleft face, yet it stems from the judgment that the cleft face is wrong. Values, morals, and societal tendencies are easily thought to be separated into a different field, but when we are applying such a powerful tool such as science and using them based on these areas we cannot separate them. I do agree that these are areas that deserve much needed care and observation. I also feel that ultimately, science, is only manipulating what 'we' think 'should' be happening, or done. Which is in the end only adding to destruction. I am not incapable, nor am I not intrigued (quite the oppositve) by what science offers that 'seem's to be beautiful. I have chosen to get surgery on my knee, repaired it so that I could walk again. Yet, in the end these inventions of tools end up in the dump. Everything that is created has to go somewhere and that is littering the earth eventually. Everything that is created, alters that which was before. And that power is what is scary.
ReplyDeleteWe see this idea in euthanasia. I personally am a believer of not forcing people to stay alive (not that this is the only case of it-but times it is) the fact that it is illegal is wrong, yet how do we give someone the power to make the decision. This is the falter.
My post wasn't to bash science, but simply point it out for exactly what it is. It is a human tool used for creating, destroying, manipulating, altering, etc.