Question: To what extent should we be suspicious of Science?
Both texts offer a perspective which questions the supremacy of Science, not exactly in what it has achieved but rather in what it can achieve. This (not so subtle) subtlety is important to note considering the growing number of people who distrust institutions, leading to flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers for example. Criticizing Science as a concept is fundamental so as it does not become a self-contradictory dogma used in a quasi-religious way. In fact, it would be contradictory to not apply the scientific method on the concept itself. Being aware of the limitations of modern Science does not hinder its power or impact, but repositions it as a tool to acquire situational knowledge; it is ludicrous to proclaim otherwise, such as universal properties or any foresight outside of the realm of probabilities. Thus the importance paying attention to doubts raised by scientists.
The main problem that we see is the lack of nuance attached to some discourses concerning Science as an institution and as a concept: either they are completely dismissive toward it, or overly glorify it. As mentioned above, it is often discussed in religious terms like “belief” while it should not, as it is merely a process and not an end in itself, although many people claim the opposite.
No comments:
Post a Comment