PD writes:
But Is It Always Right?
No, of course not: but science is more likely to yield useful, increasingly accurate approximations than any other method. Faith, in particular, explicitly rejects systematic, independent review and correction.
A person who consistently rejects scientific findings based on their religious or philosophical perspective will sometimes be correct in their denial, but they cannot provide consistently accurate alternatives: I can predict someone's death every day, and eventually be right, but that does not change the fact that each day's prediction is based on ignorance. The collation of an individual's risk factors--genetic, environmental and lifestyle--and actuarial profiles produces far more accurate and useful estimates of longevity.
Now reason tells us that our observations can be flawed and experiments are limited by our observations, desire, and capabilities; but we still have faith in the system.
I'd say that we have confidence that scientific methodology is the approach most likely to yield useful approximations. And I don't see how one could consider the current outlook on science in the U.S. and conclude that the average person has unquestioning "faith" in science; indeed, there seems to be a greal deal of skepticism.
As you've shown, while the surgery saved your father's life and was the right course of action based on the data at the time; the data at the time wasn't correct.
The data at the time was closer to being correct than any other prior or contemporary view--it was precisely correct in positing a disease process based in the natural world and knowable cause-and-effect. Previously, patients with severe bleeding stomach ulers almost invariably died; patients who received the then-newly developed surgery in most cases survived.
Forty years ago the data, hypothesis, and best therapy were good; now they are better. Perhaps in the future an improved understanding of intestinal ecology will permit us to prevent the H. pylorii blooms that create ulcers: good, better, best--this is the narrative arc of medical progress and epitomizes the scientific method.
As I noted, prior theories of human disease were nearly mythological in nature--humours, punishment by an angry God, demonic possession, etc. The essential difference is that the best data at the time of my father's surgery was produced by a system capable of and amenable to correction: his treatment was not the best possible, but it was the best available, based on a rational view of human anatomy and disease produced by centuries of inquiry.
Although that data required correction, it was accurate enough to produce useful, life-saving results. For millennia, no other school of thought had produced a treatment capable of saving his life. The essence of faith, in contrast, is static, unchanged from the tribal time of animal sacrifice and public stonings.
All human endeavors are subject to error. It is the unique genius of the scientific method that both data and conclusions must be subject to testing by others, the very antithesis of faith.
I'm not saying that data achieved by using the scientific method is always right or always wrong. What I'm saying is that we have faith in the system even though we know it can allow wrong data to prevail.
As noted previously, I see no justification for calling our confidence in the ability of sicence to produce an increasingly accurate view of the natural world "faith." A hometown fan may have faith that their team (which is 0 and 30 again this year) will win their final game; the rational observer who notes that their opponent is 30 and 0 will reach the contrary conclusion, and it is absurd to call both perspectives "faith."
IMO, the average person has become conditioned to accept that scientists find the right answers. That's why people get distressed when scientists in the media contradict each other. (The same way people get distressed when preachers contradict each other.) The average person usually doesn't have the means to determine who is right.
I'd say many people abdicate their right and ability to determine which scientific hypothesis has the greatest likelihood of being correct: in most instances (given normal human intelligence and the average Western access to educational resources), what most people lack is not the means but the will.
I'd also suggest that this is not an unreasonable position: the track record of the scientific method justifies a greater confidence in its results than the results of religious dogma, folklore, or other mystification. Again, the medical example is useful: accumulated data can predict quite well the probable outcomes of various treatments for a given type of cancer; the need to venture into disputed territory arises when there is great need to do so--when standard-of-care approaches have been exhausted.
In my experience, the first time most people assume responsibility for their own evaluation of conflicting scientific hypotheses occurs when they must choose among experimental therapies: mortality focuses the mind wonderfully on one's own powers of reason. The enormous number of specific disease-oriented online forums, support groups, articles, etc. testifies to the average person's readiness to audit scientific data and hypotheses when it truly matters.
The average person
is capable of reasonable conclusions about scientific hypotheses: when need awakens the will, reason rises to the challenge. Most people are persuaded by a powerful track record to rely on a general scientific consensus, an outlook that is neither conditioned nor faithful but rather experienced and confident.
Edited by Omnivorous, : typos
Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.
-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799)
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------
Heh.
™ Version 4.2
