Civilization (Humans)

by dhw, Saturday, November 08, 2008, 13:21 (5857 days ago) @ David Turell

Carl compares science to religion "because they are both faith based for those of us who are not knowledgeable at the leading edge of controversial topics." He has no faith in Michael Crichton "when he disagrees with the experts." David writes: "Real understanding of these issues requires an open mind and study on your own. Never accept the pap that the world is constantly deluged with. It may be a majority viewpoint, but science is not a voting process." - One of the features of "civilization" is that its complexities have made us dependent on others in virtually every sphere of life. I need the help of an expert to deal with my car, accounts, plumbing, food, body. Other people need my expertise in my own particular field. That's how our society works. And all our transactions are based on faith ... that the expert knows his stuff, and everything will be fine after his/her ministrations. Unfortunately, this dependence has a huge down side. Look at the current banking crisis, the businesses that crash, billion-pound IT systems that don't work, catastrophic invasions... - In the field of science, I'm in the same boat as Carl, and have to rely on what the experts say. But what are we supposed to believe when they disagree? If we go back to the topic of abiogenesis, which is a crucial element of atheism and was the subject of many earlier posts on this forum, we find no evidence but plenty of faith: atheist scientists (who are in the majority) believe in the theory, and theist scientists don't. An agnostic keeps an open mind, in spite of the majority vote. - When it comes to the incalculably important issue of the environment, David presents us with information about the troposphere, Arctic Sea ice, Alaskan glaciers etc., and Michael Crichton's information comes from "prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature". The fact that these observations, which stem from reputable sources, run counter to the current trend doesn't mean that they're wrong. On the other hand, when Crichton says: "I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was," I think of my watering eyes and sore throat whenever I'm subjected to someone else's fag, and I reckon he's talking rubbish! So which observations should I believe? Again I'll keep an agnostic's open mind until I'm satisfied that something has been proved. - However, personal beliefs are one thing, and the state of the planet is another. If urgent action is needed on certain environmental issues (we may disagree on which ones), I have no choice but to rely on the experts in all related fields. But which experts? This is where I think Crichton has hit the nail squarely on the head: "We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast. Because in the end science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost." As with the UN, impartiality is essential, and to Crichton's political agendas (including those of the scientists themselves) I would add other vested interests such as big business and religion. If science is not impartial, it's worthless, and in any human field, policies based on false information can only lead to disaster.