... social scientists must work out what is right about science, not just what is wrong — we cannot live by scepticism alone. Natural scientists, too, have a part to play: they must reflect on and recognize the limits of their practice and their understanding. Together, we must choose to live in a society that recognizes the value of experience and expertise.
This third wave will be resisted. Post-modernists have become comfortable in their cocoon of cynicism. And some natural scientists have become too fond of describing their work as godlike. Others are ready to offer simple-minded criticisms of deeply held beliefs. But the third wave is needed to put science back in its proper place.
This seems right. But I'm less sure of this:
Science's findings are to be preferred over religion's revealed truths, and are braver than the logic of scepticism, but they are not certain. They are a better grounding for society precisely, and only, because they are provisional. It is open debate among those with experience that is the ultimate value of the good society.Why would "science's findings" be preferred over "religion's revealed truths"? If the latter are, in fact, true then there should be no reason to prefer one over the other. Also, "science's findings" may be provisional, but it doesn't sound that way when you hear certain scientists go on about them. And where does the business of consensus fit in to all this ("a policy-maker should accept the position of those who share in the tacit knowledge of the expert community.")? Science, as I understand it, does not arrive at its findings by taking a vote.
It is, however, true that we cannot live by skepticism alone. We need faith.
I share your discomfort over the cited assertion: "Science's findings are to be preferred over religion's revealed truths . . . " Science throughout history, after all, has been responsible for some profound blunders, and accepted scientific findings (i.e., scientific truths) have been reluctantly adapted or abandoned when confronted by realities. (The history of science's understanding of disease is an obvious example of this issue.) On the other hand, while faith may also be vulnerable to blunders, and while "religion's revealed truths" have often been problematic (i.e., we should never forget the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and the thousands of other deplorable examples of religion gone haywire), there is nevertheless something reassuring about the fact that faith as distinguished from religion is a deliberately personal choice. While culture/society will almost always force scientific findings upon the individual, the individual--even in the most repressive culture/society--still has the God-given freedom to choose or reject faith.
ReplyDeleteScience's findings are based on evidence. Religious "truth" is based on faith or to put it another way, belief. So it is not "true" in the same sense.
ReplyDeleteAre you quite sure of that distinction?
ReplyDeleteThere may be truths for which there is no evidence (at least, not in what have offered as the scientific sense of the word). Moreover, some scientific findings have been based on evidence that turned out to be wrong (i.e., false).
Actually, I'm with Maxine on this. What struck me as odd - and I may not have made this clear - was the juxtaposition (and poor phrasing, in my view) of "science's findings" with "religion's revealed truths." I don't think there are truths for which there is no evidence (even though it might be "the evidence of things unseen") and there are some truths that are arrived at by means other than science (which is another way of saying science is not the only way of arriving at truth, which is really what people like good Professor Dawkins seem to claim).
ReplyDelete