Most societies have both scientists and science teachers, but which is more of a benefit? I dare to say the latter and here I explore my reasoning for this conclusion.
Science is often criticized for having conclusions in a state of transition. “How can one trust science when it’s always changing its mind?” is the question. Funny, I think, how the image evoked here is of a field in a continuous state of wild fluctuation. Here we have an image of scientists going inexorably from one conclusion to another which is wildly different, but in fact, this is less of a fluctuation and more of a modification. The difference is scale.
Every last one of us may be completely certain of one thing. Somewhere in our current understanding of the world lies error. It may seem surprising, but that’s a good thing, because where there is error in one’s understanding, there is room to improve that understanding and this leaves the door open for discovery. Thus, each of us having an error in our understanding, has the opportunity to discover something, and since we all have this error, we all have this opportunity. One engaged in a continuous search for those errors is exploring. One engaged in revising one’s position with each error discovered is bound to have a more accurate picture than one remaining intransigent in one’s conclusions in the name of being constant.
The conclusions of science remain in a state of gradual, slight modification because science is dedicated not to the end of claiming to have every answer, but to the end of achieving the highest degree of certainty humanly possible about the answers we have. The fact that science is ready to admit its errors and the fact that it remains ever vigilant in the search for these errors is precisely what makes it trustworthy. Science is a self-correcting process, continuously seeking out an understanding of the world better than the one it furnishes today, and though “different” doesn’t necessarily mean “better,” “better,” does necessarily mean “different.”
Science is the best method we have for furthering our understanding of the world, because it works. If one wishes to send a rocket to the moon, one relies on astronomy, not astrology; physics, not metaphysics; chemistry, not alchemy. When a woman goes into labor, one calls a doctor, not a homeopath. When one collapses with a heart-attack, the paramedics bring a defibrillator, not magic crystals. There’s a reason one never hears the words, “Those odds are astrological.”
I appreciate science because I understand this. I understand this because of my science teachers. In high school, I took two semesters of biology, physics, botany, earth science, and psychology. In this, I came to understand and appreciate this.
A society benefits directly from scientific research, but to conduct this research, one needs both expertise and funding. With either of these taken away, the research simply won’t happen. Well the scientists who provide the expertise are much more able to secure the necessary funding in a society that supports that funding, and that is much more likely to happen in a society that understands and appreciates science. A society that has no science teachers is a society in which the general public ceases to understand science, and subsequently ceases to appreciate it and support its funding. Where there is no science education, there is no science. Thus, I conclude, when society loses its science teachers, when those teachers are negligent in some way, or when they are in some way hampered in their efforts to teach science, that society derives more harm than when the same happens to its scientists.
Therefore, in the interests of protecting his or her trade, every scientist is well advised to maintain a high level of skill for colloquial explanation.
No comments:
Post a Comment