Unquestionable Correctness Of Science And Scientific Research example essay topic

'There are several different criticisms that have been commonly levelled at science and scientists as a whole.? During the course of this essay I shall attempt to identify these criticisms and identify the reasoning behind each of them. The first of these criticisms is that science has been given similar status to a religion. It was commonly thought in the early days of science that science would eventually develop a theory for everything, thereby replacing religion through removing the ambiguous and the incomprehensible parts of life with which religion dealt.? In many ways science has replaced religion in the 21st century, as it has become the object of faith and even devotion.? A blind faith has been placed in the unquestionable correctness of science and scientific research.?

It was Emile Durkheim who first advanced the theory that given enough time, science would replace all traditional religions to be replaced by a formal, unquestionable religion based upon science.? It is the arrogance of many scientists that leads us to believe that scientific theories are facts, and can be treated as? truth? replacing religion by explaining the facts behind the creation and existence of the world.? The problem with this belief that science is unquestionable fact and can be treated in a similar way to a religion is twofold. First, scientific theories are advanced through observation and experimentation, these theories can never be proved entirely correct since they are based only on certain observations, as the full facts can never be known, a theory can only be said to be correct in so far as it is correct from the observations made given the facts available.?

Secondly, science and religion can never be directly linked since they do not overlap in any shape or form.? Science deals with the physical, religion with the insubstantial.? In their very essence the two are diametrically opposed to one another and can? t be compared.? In short, science deals with the how, religion with the why.? Although science attempts to understand the world around us, how it was created and how we and other creatures came to exist, it can never fully explain the automated human search for a higher being.? There seems to be a desire within humans to believe in something larger and greater than that which is visible and physical, something science can never explain.?

For this reason, science can never replace religion, as it simply does not explain enough.? It's explanations fall far short of what would be needed to satisfy human curiosity.? Religion, in general, does a much better job of explaining what needs to be explained about human nature. However, Scientists in recent years have attempted to give their work a status of being unquestionably correct.? As I have already explained, the truth of science or the correctness or otherwise of a given theory can never be entirely proved.? A theory can only be proved correct in so far as it is correct given a certain set of facts, and without having all the facts available, a theory can never be given the status of absolute fact, and consequently, no scientific theory can ever be proved, although it can be proved false through further research.?

However, this strong criticism of science can be taken even further.? Karl Popper put forward the theory that scientific? facts? of the present day are simply probabilities, and only hold this status until such time as new evidence emerges allowing the theory to be dropped or adapted.? Thomas Kuhn took this criticism of scientists even further, he believed that scientists, for the vast majority of the time, went to great lengths to fit their experiments to already existing theories, or when new information was taken into account, and it was simply accommodated by existing theories rather than new theories being created.? Kuhn went further in his criticism; he claimed that when new theories were advanced, it was normally due to a competition between two scientists.?

Eventually, one theory would emerge victorious, however, this emergence, claimed Kuhn, had little to do with the correctness or otherwise of the theory and more to do with the political connections and status of the scientists involved in the battle. Feyerabend takes his criticism of the methodology of science to the extreme and claims that the scientific experiments are not based on observation of facts, but interpretation of what was seen.? He claimed that theories were not so much formulated by experimentation and careful experimentation, but more through conjecture, metaphysical speculation, inspiration and revelation.? This treats scientists as creative and irrational, making observations fit preconceived ideas, instead of the objective, rational, self-critical people they attempt to be. A further criticism that has been levelled at science is that it is heavily dependent on cultural background and presuppositions, and not the value-free discipline that it is so frequently thought to be.? This relies on the idea that a culture will only examine and discover that which is important to that culture.?

Science is currently accused of? Eurocentric ism?? This refers to the western dominance that is exerted over scientific research. The result is that scientific study revolves around solving problems that afflict the western world, rather than attempting to solve far more difficult and profound problems afflicting the third world.? For example, much funding is currently being given towards finding a cure for cancer.? A further criticism of western science is that it is based on economics.

Those who benefit most from a breakthrough in medical science are not those who benefit from the treatment as patients, but those who benefit as investors as they are the ones who receive the money from the sale of the treatment to health services and hospitals.? There is also an arrogance about western methods of conducting scientific experiments.? The western scientists appear to believe that there is only one way in which to conduct scientific experiments, there are no exceptions or contradictions.? In actual fact, there are many varied ways of approaching science, and different cultures have different emphasise when examining the world around us according to their individual culture. In conclusion, the? supremacy? of science has been brought about by the arrogance of western scientists.? For many years, scientists, through deception, have implanted the idea in people's brains that scientific theories are unquestionably correct despite all information to the contrary.?

In fact, scientific supremacy has been taken so far through arrogance that the truth of science, as well as being rarely questioned, has gained the status of religion in our modern society, although science can never explain the human tendency to a belief in a? God? or a supernatural being, nor can it prove to the contrary.? In this, however, I believe we see even more apparently the human desire for something to believe in, and despite its many flaws, for some people, science provides the alternative to a religion.? Furthermore, in the attempt to maintain the belief that all scientific theories should be taken as gospel, scientists simply attempt to fit new information into old theories, or when a theory must be disregarded, it is described as? unscientific??

Scientific theories are also subject to human observation and therefore preconceived ideas, notions and creative thoughts.? In this respect therefore, the observations can be made to fit the preconceived ideas.? The supremacy of western science over other scientific cultures is also questionable as there are different ways to conduct science.? In short, western science has arrogantly given the impression that there is only one true scientific method, that used by western scientists.? This arrogance has led western peoples to believe unquestioningly in what scientists say, and those who read it unquestioningly apparently regard all scientific theory as absolutely correct.? ?