Adam+Mistretta+What+is+Science

Science is clearly not something easy to define, and every attempt to do so inevitably leads to one of two very different conclusions. One common conclusion, often by members of the scientific community, is that science is a flawlessly objective mode of rational thinking, grand and irrefutable. The other conclusion would be the exact opposite, we have all been lied to by scientists and researchers, who are in fact just guessing and checking their way to new information. Logically then the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but in my opinion that is not the case either. In reality, both are true at the exact same time. Science is both the bold and honorable endeavor toward truth and an application of sometimes unimpressive methods of getting to that truth. The first point raised is always that of the scientific method. This is the golden shield for scientists, they can always claim that because of their highly logical mode of testing and analysis to defend a hypothesis, that science truly is higher thinking. The opposition will quickly point out that this not the way research is always, or even often, carried out. The reality of this issue is however, that like anything else in this world, the same approach is not always effective. In some more rigid sciences like math or physics, it is often possible to form a hypothesis and test it within rigidly defined circumstances to understand a phenomenon. At the same time in softer sciences like psychology, it may be necessary to do something as simple as observing an event several times and making the best conclusion possible about what is happening. Anything in the human world requires multiple methods, from business to government to sports and anything else, multiple paths may be taken to the same result, and science is no different. To me this is largely academic, the scientific method and the whole concept of higher thought in scientific research, is merely a detail on the surface of the question of what science truly is. Now at the same time to say science is not the work of prestigious and talented individuals is a gross overstatement. All branches of science do require knowledge of mathematics and basic concepts; certainly not just anyone is capable of making scientific discoveries. It is not the capacity of thought that is often considered key though, so much as the method. As I stated above, I do not believe that a scientist is someone who operates on a completely different plane as the rest of the world, even if they might be more skilled in certain areas. Clearly scientists do have superior skills in certain academic areas than other individuals, which is quite respectable, but this is not the same as the belief that science is carried out in some alternate dimension of reasoning. What truly makes science what it is, is not the method by which the research is performed, but rather the motive behind why it is carried out. In its simplest form, the motive for science can be defined as this: we are trying to learn the answers to things we do not currently understand. The prestige often associated with science is due to the fact that scientific research is often done purely for the sake of knowledge. This is not to say that numerous scientific discoveries haven’t been put to practical uses, but rather that it was not the motive for making those discoveries. For instance some sciences, like paleontology or quantum physics, have little to no impact on the fate of the human race. Yet scientists continue to pursue more and more knowledge in these fields, for the simple reason that they refuse to accept that there are things we will never know. This is where the prestige of science lies, it is the very best of humankind’s determination and resilience. We don’t need to know what killed the dinosaurs or what elementary particle sparked the big bang, but we strive to know anyways, because it is what we as a people do, we learn. Science is the weapon with which fight ignorance, science is the belief that knowledge is valuable only for the sake of knowledge. One can see the immense value of science when considering what we would be without it, not without technology, but rather without any research conducted purely to satisfy curiosity. What would become of us as a species if we only studied nature to the point necessary to survive? The answer is that we would become a society of complacent and ignorant individuals. For instance, we scoff at people who once believed that the earth was at the center of the universe, and pride ourselves at no longer harboring such ignorance. But what difference does it actually make to our species? Isn’t it more important that have invented antibiotics and electric heating? However we do feel it is very important because such a discovery has brought us farther down the path toward being truly knowledgeable. Living with information that is incorrect is simply unacceptable, no matter what impact it actually has on the world, our knowledge is a part of us, and we must strive to maintain it. In conclusion, I would say that science is a very respectable and important part of our society. Is it magic? Absolutely not. There is no magical scientific method used by researchers to find the answers, no level of thought which is simply beyond the comprehension of individuals outside of the scientific community. Yet in some ways science is still at the forefront of who we are as a species. People who contribute to the world in non-scientific ways are in no way inferior, but science still has a certain prestige that nothing else will ever have. What we know via science defines who we are as a people. Are we people who allow ignorance to consume us, or people who strive into the darkness determined to find the answers to the universe’s mysteries? Science is the fundamental belief that every question is worth answering, as long as anything is unknown to humankind, we will never be complete.