Is this a scientific age? In one way it is, but in the most fundamental way it is not. We would be better off if we were less impressed with science in the former sense and more influenced by it in the latter sense. Let me first define science. The purpose of science is to discover the mechanisms through which the natural world works. Science is composed of three parts: (a) a method of investigation; (b) a body of knowledge; (c) applied to do useful things - technology.
Science discovers how the world works by observing how it works. Simple yet profound. No scientific theory can survive if contradicted by correctly interpreted observations of the world.
The scientific method works roughly as follows. Every scientist tries to solve some particular problem. The scientist first studies all existing scientific knowledge of the problem. Using this knowledge, plus imagination and intuition, the scientist makes an educated guess as to the solution to the problem - the hypothesis. He/she then performs a test (experiment) to see if the hypothesis holds up. Based on the results, the scientist either rejects, modifies or provisionally accepts the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is modified or accepted, the scientist devises further tests, and this process continues until eventually the hypothesis is finally accepted or rejected.
Science has discovered a vast body of knowledge about the world. We know that the universe began about 15 billion years ago in a big bang at a single point and has been expanding outwards ever since. We know how stars and planets are formed. We know how the elements of matter are forged in the stars. We know the four fundamental forces that operate in the universe. We know the structure of the earth. We know that life began on earth about 3.5 billion years ago and that all present life is descended from that original life. We know much about the interactions between the earth and life.
Scientific knowledge is never absolutely certain. This does not mean that science rests on a shaky foundation. In the ordinary sense of the word, we can be sure that most scientific knowledge is true. However, it may not be exactly the full truth. Scientific knowledge must remain revisable in the light of new evidence.
Basic science is the method (a) and the body of knowledge (b). However, when the world at large thinks of science it invariably thinks first of (c) - technology. Our civilisation is obviously dependent on science-based technology - medicine, e.g. vaccines; agriculture, e.g. fertiliser; communications and information, e.g. telephone, fax, computer; transport, e.g. motorcars, aircraft; entertainment, e.g. TV, radio, video; domestic appliances, e.g. refrigerator, microwave oven, etc.
We have adopted technology with enthusiasm and it has improved life in many ways. But there are downsides, e.g. pollution. We are also in danger of becoming addicted to technology and of worshipping the gadgets we create.
Is this a scientific age? If it were, society would be permeated by the three components of science. This is not the case. Society depends on technology, but the influence of the other two aspects of science is limited. General modes of thinking and decision-making are little influenced by the scientific method, and while there is passive public goodwill towards science, there is little public understanding of science.
Think of the medieval era, which was a religious age characterised by a widespread influence of religion on society. This was readily seen in art, literature, architecture, music, etc. This is also how you would recognise a scientific age and, by this criterion, we clearly do not have such an age at present.
Science can answer only certain types of question. It can tell us how the natural world works and what the natural consequences will be if we do certain things to the natural world. But, scientific knowledge doesn't come with instructions on how to use it properly. Science cannot teach us morality or ethics and it has nothing to say about the spiritual dimension. Science can contribute to our happiness but, by and large, it cannot tell us what will make us happy.
I believe we would be better off if this were a more scientific age. Within its sphere of competence, science is wonderfully powerful and successful. If we allow it to benefit society to the full extent of its competence it will be a good thing. If we ask science to answer questions outside its competence that will be bad. How could the more widespread influence of science benefit society? Take politics as one example.
Many natural problems face society and we rely on politicians to find solutions. But politicians work in a way that is ill-suited to finding solutions. Unemployment has plagued Ireland since the foundation of the State. No government has solved the problem. We can deduce that the solution is unknown or almost impossible to implement. But no politician will admit to this. They all pretend to know the answer because they fear that if they admit ignorance they will be rejected by the electorate.
If unemployment was an easy problem we would have solved it long ago and science can solve natural problems. But it shouldn't be that difficult to solve. It is a natural problem. The elements involved are supply and demand, pricing, competitiveness, etc. Such problems are amenable to investigation by the scientific method.
We should remove the pressure that forces politicians to pretend they have instant solutions to every problem that comes along. We should give them facilities to investigate matters properly, to form conclusions that will produce progress and we should respect such conclusions. We should expect and allow our politicians to behave scientifically.
(William Reville is a senior lecturer in Biochemistry at UCC.)