The Day The Science Died! Commentary.

I don’t know the exact day that science died, but I was there when the end began. Somewhere during the Ronald Reagan-Bill Clinton era I remember hearing on television that American students were falling behind Asian students in the areas of mathematics and science. I remember hearing this quite a few more times over they years, but then, at some point, I didn’t hear it any more. I guess we care, but not enough to make such courses mandatory.

I remember that in my college years while undergoing a pre-med curriculum and hanging with my science and engineering friends I could always feel a definite, although indescribable difference from kids studying curricula that my circle always scoffed at and asked, “they go to college for that” ?  Yeah, I suppose we were a bit snobbish, but still, even in those years, whenever I spoke of scientific things to those not studying science, I always felt like I was talking to a brick, and I am sure the other person felt they were talking to a spaced out nerd. Today, if I speak in general quarters about simple principles like Boyle’s Law, Avogadro’s Number, or The 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics I might as well be speaking Martian. People should have a foundation in basic science.

As the general public has become less scientifically astute, and digital media has become more influential, the objectivity of science has died. Science, pure science, is supposed to be free of progressive social agenda and influence. There is no such thing as feminist science, racist science, the science of transgender-ism, or any of the other hitching posts that the world attaches to the word science. Science is science. It affects every man in the same way. What the impact science has on the social aspect of our lives is of no consideration. Science does not carry the requirement of making us happy. Yet, we reject any science that pisses us off.

Sadly, this has been the first nail in the coffin of objective science. If a select group is affected by a product or process, then we can be sure that only scientific evidence in favor of that doctrine will be illuminated and brought to the forefront. For science to be credible, it must be empirical, meaning it must take into consideration all observations and perspectives.

Imagine if you will 10,000 people at the front of Mount Rushmore being asked to describe the structure to an artist, and then imagine what his composite drawing would look like. Now imagine that 3 people were looking at Mount Rushmore while standing on the top of Lincoln’s head. Imagine what the artist would draw from that description. It would be quite different. Which is correct?

Science you see, is no different. No perspective can be minimized, and no scientific claim can be validated by the sheer number of people who claim it.  Even more disappointing is that because the study of science and mathematics have become almost a nuisance in our educational system today, we have difficulty ascertaining if a scientific claim was done objectively or not. Worse, we assume if we hear it, it must be true. When those who disagree with the scientific majority are no longer given an equal voice, then science has indeed been dealt a death blow.

Think about this; Dr. William McBride, the Australian physician who discovered that Thalidomide caused birth defects, did so shortly after the drug was released circa 1957. Shunned by the scientific community, and despite having overwhelming evidence, it took him 5 years to have the drug pulled off the market, after thousands of infants were born with birth defects. He bucked the “experts” and faced a broad attempt to squash his voice. Bucking the trend is a lot harder today.

This great scientific deception we are immersed in today is fueled by our inability to understand the difference between scientific process, and empirical science. Many times a general examination of the process of a particular scientific theory is iron clad, leading us to believe that the science is valid, yet many times the science is bogus. How can this be?

Here is how. Think of the law student’s moot court. Often the student is asked to defeat a legal argument in the classroom that has already been won in actual court, years before. At the end of the moot court, often the student may actually gain a judgement that is contrary to what has already been ruled upon in the real world. The examination of the student’s casework proves to be infallible, even though his verdict is invalid.

Science is the same way. A process can be infallible, but if it is not based on all prior evidence, perspectives and scientific law, the conclusions are moot.They are incomplete. Sadly, too much of what is presented to us today as fact, is actually one-sided scientific process.

All sides of science are considered in the laboratory. It should be the same in society.