The objectives of science, as I learned, are not to find the truth. They are aimed to understand nature and the universe, so that researchers and the government can plan and act for the people’s well-being. Many studies are meant to support scientific consensus, as in evolution and climate change. Hence, these are factual conclusions—supported by valid data. They are not permanent truth; they can be changed by more studies. This is the progressive nature of science.Science is not to seek permanent truth anymore but only well-being?! I wonder if other scientists agree with that definition of science.
As from what I gathered from my undergraduate studies in a public state university, science seeks the Truth about the physical world regardless of whether or not it will benefit well-being of peoples. Well-being is just one of the consequences of science: Theoretical Physics, for example, does not aim directly to improve well-being of people. The apparent non-permanence of scientific truth is due to the piece-meal approach of many studies. Instead by seeing nature of science as "progressive", I see it as "incremental".
The threats of demographic winter (or decreased human population), peddled by nonscientists who are against the RH bill, have no scientific basis. I have yet to see properly published studies—the Social Citation Index (SCI)—with “demographic winter” in the article title.Not all properly published studies are irreproachable. Some alleged "scientific journals" are published by some groups of scientists according to their ideological preferences. Some of these are done with below par obedience and adherence to valid research methodologies as long as it caters to their ideological conclusions. Some alleged "scientists" have works that are neither rigorous nor "gospel truths". Moreover, the human intellect is not perfect as the good scientist have demonstrated with the example Paul Ehrlich and Chernobyl; it is prone to unintended and unintentional errors.
Contrary to the claim of the scientist, ordinary laypersons can do science by using their reasons following good logic and philosophy. News and documentaries about the graying populations of some western countries may not be published in scientific journals but they can still be considered done and written using valid scientific methodologies.
Scientists do not debate religious views. They try to explain science. “Science and religion are different ways of understanding. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of both to contribute to a better future.”I learned from my studies in the public state university that science seeks to explain some of the mysteries of the created visible world. In so doing, science displays the truth about the cosmos. I would dare say that Science seeks the truth of the material sensible world: part of the works of the Creator God. But persons doing science are fallible mortals susceptible to error.
Religion, on the other-hand, seeks to give some sense to the mysteries of the invisible spiritual world which human beings, spiritual as they are, naturally perceive within themselves. Religion, too, seek to understand creation and the Creator God. Science and Religion seek the Truth in its different aspects: the former on visible material truths while the latter on invisible spiritual truths. Since Human beings are substantial unities of matter and spirit (human persons), scientific and religious truth ought not be in conflict. Moreover, science and religion seek to understand the works and nature of the Creator God: both are aiming at the same Reality. There ought to be no conflict in that.
Thus, the RH Bill issue could be summarized as follows:
Catholic bishops say contraception will seriously endanger the "health" of people's souls, while Cong. Lagman, et.al. say contraception will be good to the health of bodies.
There ought to be no conflict between "health" of souls and bodily health. That which is bad for people's souls will also be bad for their bodies. And that which is good for the "health" of their souls will also be good to their bodies.
One of the two sides of the issue must be TELLING A LIE!
Which side could it be?
FOR FURTHER READING:
As a Roman Catholic scientist, I have to inform you that science does not deal with permanent truth only facts that can change. I think your science professors in a public university failed to impress to you the philosophical position that in science all conclusions are tentative. The best we can get to are approximations of the truth about the natural world.
ReplyDeleteScience is a profession and people train for years to do it properly. Laypeople cannot do professional science but they can do science by using the scientific method which presupposes they limit their cognition of phenomena only on natural things. If you use logic and philosophy while discarding experimentation, then you are going against the scientific tradition started by Pope Sylvester II, formalized by St Albert the Great, and exemplified by Father Roger Bacon and all the priests and bishops scientists of the medieval period. By the time of Galileo, this has been well established as a prerequisite of good science that St Cardinal Bellarmine knew and warned Galileo about.
Science requires the publication of scientific results adequately vetted and peer reviewed, a requirement set by a Pope, John XXII upon the insistence of St Thomas Aquinas. If you think it is good science to have non reviewed or even non published results, then you are going against the scientific tradition nurtured by the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church to this day stands by this tradition and the modern popes like Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI have consistently emphasized this. Science advances and progresses but it is not strictly incremental since invalid conclusions become of historical interest only.
There is no conflict between science and the faith for they are two complementary ways of viewing the world, but two aspects of our world, the material (science) and the spiritual (theology)
Wow! This is quite a mouthful!
DeleteThank you very much, Ben, for your comprehensive comment. I take it as a clarification. And I appreciate it very much!
I agree with you that true scientists have to follow conventional rules and procedures in doing experiments-researches and publishing their scientific works so that these can be relevant and authentic additions to the body of knowledge of the created world.
But it is also undeniable that there are unscrupulous scientists and scientific journals, especially in the social sciences, that only cater to certain ideologies.
I am also amazed by your knowledge of the historical magisterial pronouncements on science!
The opinion of Prof. Flor Lacanilao alluding to the possible falsity of claims of an advent of demographic winter prompted me to write this post. I find it hard to accept his opinion. It appears the good professor is pro-contraception.
I still think the prediction of a demographic winter has valid rational and scientific basis. It may be possible that no bonafide scientist yet who has taken a fancy about this impending phenomenon and wrote a scientific journal worthy article. But journalists and philosophers who wrote about this are doing proper use of their reason.
Thank you again, Ben, for taking time to read my post and write a long substantial comment.
Here's a recent article casting doubt on the scientific method: Massive fraud by Dutch psychologist shows weak side of scientific method
ReplyDelete