Below is a copy of my Conversation Essay.
Behind the Scenes of Science
Science is a broad term that can be perceived in a certain way to the public but practiced in a completely different way. It is common for people to believe that science is a huge puzzle that scientists puts together. They think that in the end, there will always be a solution. However, that may not be the case according to Stuart Firestein, author of Ignorance: How It Drives Science. He believes that science is more of observing and trying new things that may or may not potentially lead to a discovery. This point of view can also be agreed on by Freeman Dyson, author of The Scientist as Rebel, who believes that the practice of analyzing and figuring out a solution is inapplicable and can be deceptive.
In the introduction of Ignorance: How It Drives Science, Firestein claims the scientific process to as “black cats in dark rooms.” (2) He begins with a quote from an old proverb that states, “It is very difficult to find a black cat in a dark room…especially when there is no cat.” (1) To Firestein, this is the type of process when facing science. The black cat can be referred to as the puzzle they are trying to piece together but at times, there is no solution to the puzzle. Firestein then goes on to explain when nonscientists think of science, they think it’s “nearly a 500-year-long systematic pursuit of knowledge…They imagine a brotherhood tied together by its golden rule…that churn out the cold, hard facts.” (2) It’s typical for people to believe that science is just conducting experiments and finding the next best thing but that’s only what we’re told by the media and it’s easy to imagine it being some sort of fraternity when it comes to conducting experiments. It’s not facts and rules but black cats in dark rooms as Firestein stated before. To Firestein, ignorance is the core of science, hence the title. He believes that the type of ignorance that “is not an individual lack of information but a communal gap in knowledge” (7) is what is the core of science is. It’s when your current data doesn’t make sense or provide an explanation, and this is what leads us to really dig deeper to find a better understanding.
In The Scientist As Rebel, Freeman Dyson speaks a lot about reductionism. He believes that “the failure of reductionism has been demonstrated by rigorous proof.” (800) The proof that he speaks of is when mathematician David Hilbert, was introduced to reductionism and tried to change mathematics to a “collection of formal statements using a finite alphabet of symbols…” (800) He states, “This was reductionism in the most literal sense, reducing mathematics to a set of marks written on paper, and deliberately ignoring the context of ideas and applications that give meaning to the marks.” (800) Binaries that were in the beginning of the article were “formal logic” and “real mathematics” that referred to Hilbert’s exercise in formal logic having little to do with mathematics. To Dyson this was an example as to why reductionism is misleading. Dyson argues that, “Science is a mosaic of partial and conflicting visions” and that “…science is a human activity, and the best way to understand it is to understand the individual human beings who practice it.” (805) He urges people that to understand true science the best way, you must appreciate the people behind the ideas and applications. Science is neither a bunch of facts nor is it the definition of speculations. It’s the result of self-driven want of learning more and creating a setting for understanding nature.
The article Pure Science: An Old Name with Some New Ways of Thinking by Shreyas Vissapragada, introduces us to the differences of pure science and applied science. The author argues that pure science is what brings together the drive for science and the want to learn more about the world. This article further supports the idea that science isn’t just facts but an exhilarating adventure. It argues that applied science is more competitive and doesn’t truly depict the meaning of science and pure science does. The author states that the mindset that pure science does not contribute as much as applied science is “what threatens the continued study of pure science today.” (08) To Vissaparagada, pure science not only elevates economic growth but increases “intellectual security.” (20) This is important because pure science is a vital part of representing an integral part of nature and a starting point of promoting further research on biology.
Reading all three of these sources showed me a variety of positions on the aspect of science whilst still agreeing on the same topic of what science truly is. Different authors provided different explanations of what science means to them but they all came to the same conclusion of science being more than just the basic science method. I agree with the statement that science is not only just facts and rules but a variety of failed experiments and unknown variables that might not have been considered before. It takes patience and ignorance to truly understand the depth of how science is uncovered. Ignorance: How It Drives Science is what really opened my mind about the behind the scenes of the scientific method and gave me a better understanding that science is more than just “Science with a capital S.” (2)
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license.
