Why Science Cannot Be Fully Trusted - Essay Example

Why Science Cannot be Fully Trusted Introduction Scientific enquiry is widely considered the most reliable means of getting information about virtually every subject. Given its empirical underpinnings, people tend to trust science more than other disciplines such as philosophy and arts since they are often founded on speculative rather than empirical evidence. The idea behind science is that it should involve investigation and verification of results, and any scientific endeavor should always be subject to rigorous challenge from experiment. However, although it has facilitated monumental improvements and changes in human life, it can nevertheless be very misleading if trusted blindly. In such cases, Knowledge may end up being characterized as “findings” that have not been critically analyzed and which are fundamentally flawed and inaccurate. For example, in 2013, Amgem discovered that only 6 out of 53 studies on cancer research could be replicated while the others varied widely from previous research. This trend has been observed in several other instances where scientific findings that have been assumed factual cannot be replicated suggesting that there is a laxity in verifying studies and that scientific methods are imperfect and prone to theoretical or human errors. Because of its vulnerability to defects stemming from human error, science should not be entirely trusted since it can mislead people if they do not query and verify every single claim. “The success of science for the last few centuries has been so great that we have come to equate science globally with truth” (Bauer 10). Consequently, people tend to assume that anything that has been “discovered” or “proved” is unequivocally true. Among the primary causes for the in accuracy of scientific studies is the fact that scientists longer draw motivation from science, for its own sake but rather the results of their work and how they will be pictured by society. For example, if a scientist wants to prove a hypothesis, they are likely to be motivated by the impact this new knowledge will have on the world, their personal and career life instead of the process of proving if they are wrong or not. This misguided motivation can be attributed to several factors; the most notable one is competition in the job market. Scientist have to “sing for their supper” in a corporate dominated world where most leading scientists are funded and sponsored by corporate bodies with a covert agenda. Instead of telling a scientist to discover for instance if element X in GMO causes food to become toxic after a month of storage, the scientist may be hired to find the proof that it does not. Given the competition for grants and sponsorships, many scientists have jumped into the corporate bandwagon and they work to produce specific results based on the desires of their employers. Another challenge is portrayed in the culture of careerism where scientists and researchers are only as good as their last published paper. There are tens of PHD’s competing for every other research position and many of them are desperate to produce original results to prove their credibility. As a result, there are very few who are willing to replicate the results of others since it does very little to help advance one’s career (“How science goes wrong”). In many cases, all a scientific study has to do is survive the defense stage, where the flaws may not be noticed if they have been well concealed and it will be accepted as real scientific proof. Therefore, the conflict between the need for authenticity and accuracy vs. careerism appears to be tilted in favor of the latter and this ultimately waters down the quality of studies. This has also increased the propensity by scientists to cherry-pick the results they include in a study as the subtly attempt to guide their research in the direction most convenient for them. One would assume that in the modern information age, more access by many people to research material and publications would increase accuracy and transparency in the field but the opposite appears to be true. Scientific journals have instead exploited the latitude provided by publicity to secularize findings in the name of giving people what they want to see or read. Studies done on popular issues such as sexual orientation, racial differences, impacts of TV on children and similar topics tend to be preferred and usually make it to the front pages of these journals. Publication is no longer exclusively based on accuracy and authenticity but rather sensationalism; the more striking a study is the less it will be verified since the journal would like to capitalize on the publicity. As a result, studies that did not prove a hypothesis or negative results rarely get published on the basis that they only prove what everyone already know. For example, if a scientist postulates that mineral water is harmful to children under the age of five and they discover that it indeed it, they will almost be guaranteed publication. However, should their findings be negative, they will be mostly ignored. “Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis are rarely even offered for publication, let alone accepted. “Negative results” now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990” (“How science goes wrong”). However, in science negative results are just as important as positive ones since they help the audience examine the process and reconsider previous studies that may have had similar flaws. However, by sensationalizing science too much emphasis is placed on, proving new things rather than demonstrating how correct or wrong they are. The corollary is that studies will be more likely to be weak and unsubstantiated because the scientific method was not followed through since the results were seen as more important. Nonetheless, opponents of the above thesis may claim that science can indeed be trusted since erroneous studies and unreplicable research are not essentially science since by definition scientific results should have used the scientific method of proof and verification. Therefore, the fact that something is accepted as true science does not necessarily mean it is and only accurate findings can be categorized as science. From this viewpoint, the conclusion would be that contrary to the assumption made in the thesis, science can indeed be trusted completely and that it is actually impossible to have inaccurate science given that a study can only be strictly scientific it is scientifically authentic and not based on half-baked assertions or unverified claims. However, while this claim may appear to have merit, like many pseudo-scientific ideas it is essentially grounded in fallacy and therefore flawed (Bauer 14). Science, even at its most accurate is fallible since it is only a reflection of human understanding of the universe. This understanding is not complete otherwise scientific study would be redundant and the fact that discovery has been proven and verified as a fact does eliminate room for doubt. That is why science is always open to new findings based on current research since in the end, science is a human discipline and humans are prone to error. Banville suggests that in the posterity, human knowledge may be looked upon, as ignorance should the quantum theory give up its secrets (Banville 40). He implies that the science humans take for granted, as factual today may look as ignorant in future as the idea that the sun goes around the earth looks to modern man. Therefore, as long as research is done based on misconstrued motivations to promote ones career or provide a specific answer it should not be trusted since it reflects on an increase in the human margin of error. In conclusion, while conceding that science cannot be trusted in its entirety, the reason humanity has changed so much is because of depending on results of scientific study to make decisions such as planting crops and developing technology. However the motivation for researcher and scientists in the contemporary world has made it increasingly more difficult to trust the findings of studies since they many not truly represent the workings of the scientific method. In the end, the job of scientists is to minimize the impact of human imperfection on science so that the results can be as accurate as humanly possible. However, when people succumb to the temptation to combine scientific endeavors with the quest for greatness, personal or corporate financial gain, they are bound to increase significantly the margin of error making science even less trustworthy. Works Cited “How science goes wrong”. The Economist. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2014 Banville, John. "Beauty, charm, and strangeness: Science as metaphor."Science 281.5373 (1998): 40-41. Bauer, Henry. The Culture of Science. n.d. Print Read More