Tuesday, 27 June 2023

The Death Of Science In Our Day Part 2

 

Image: Unsplash

A couple of years ago I published a piece entitled: The Death of Science In Our Day? In that article I noted,

“The university was originally a specifically Christian religious institution devoted to truth, study, and the contemplation of reality, all of which found their source in the Christian view of God. It is important to understand that without the foundational Christian belief in an ordered reality, set up by a consistent God, who only deals in truth, that science as a discipline would not be possible.

It is also important to understand what science is,

…science is not merely technology. A society does not have science simply because it can build sailing ships, smelt iron, or eat off porcelain dishes. Science is a method utilized in organized efforts to formulate explanations of nature, always subject to modifications and corrections through systematic observations (emphasis author’s).[2] 

Anyone who has studied theology understands why the scientific method developed out of theological institutions, it is because the theologian’s goal is truth, and the way to find truth is to observe what the word of God, and church fathers, and other theologians have said, to form a hypothesis, and then confirm or debunk this in the context of community. Take this process and apply it to nature and you have the birth of peer reviewed science. This method was uniquely Christian and uniquely western, and hence science flourished first in the Christian West.

Once you understand the necessity, not the coincidence, but the necessity of Christianity for science to flourish, then you can understand why we are witnessing its decay in the modern age.”[1]

I also argued in this same piece that, as incredible as it sounds, we live in the shadow of the possibility of seeing the end of science in our own day. Of course, even if this does happen there will for some time still be people who call themselves scientists and who say what they do is “the science”, and institutions which claim to be the adjudicators of what “ the science” is, and even a popular belief in science still holding supreme authority. But the fact that many of these individuals and bodies are already showing signs of being in a post science framework, indicates that we could very well see science die in our life time.

For those who believe in the inevitable progress of mankind, this might seem impossible, unconscionable even. Especially to those Christians who have spent the last several decades to a century seeking to reinterpret the doctrines of the Church according to the changing winds of scientific discoveries. But to those who have observed how a certain intellectual and, this is significant, spiritual climate is necessary for something like science to flourish, it is becoming more and more of a distinct possibility. Or more aptly put, a distinct danger for our whole way of life.  

You can see from your own observations just how far the human mind can go to deny truth, and even scientific truth. There are plenty of experts alive today who will tell you with a straight face that a man can become a woman or a woman a man, or an experimental medication is not really experimental “they just cut through red tape to speed up the process”, or that a female athlete can be elite[2], or any number of obvious falsehoods. It is becoming ubiquitous in our society to see once credible people in once credible positions, affirm, or refuse to deny, increasingly ridiculous truths. Watching people freak out when asked “What is a woman?” and the realizing that many such people are in a position to make laws, is a truly concerning development and a clear sign that things are going in a seriously bad direction. But one need not just rely on their own observation to come to this conclusion.  

The state of science is so terrifying to some scientists, it is keeping them awake at night, as is noted in the Sydney Morning Herald,

“‘I lose sleep at night’: Experts fight to expose science fraud in Australia.

…Retractions and scientific misconduct, once thought to be extremely rare, have come into sharp focus over the past decade as scientists have discovered more cases.

Ivermectin gained prominence as a treatment for COVID-19 based on a large number of fraudulent studies, some researchers argue.

One estimate suggests about one in every 50 published papers has evidence of deliberate manipulation; other scientists have even gone as far as claiming “most published research findings are false”.[3]

Forget what you think about ivermectin for the moment, the fact that studies can be produced by both sides, and in such large numbers, highlights the problem. Science can apparently be produced to support “your team” in a time of need. Science has always been prone to the fallen nature of the people doing it. But it seems that the current structure of the scientific community incentivizes dishonesty. That is not my assertion, the same article notes,

“I think it’s something Australians would be horrified to know about. And there is a reticence to talk about it. No one is wanting to bring down science. But the system is such, it makes sense in many ways to be fraudulent.”[4]

“The system” encourages people “in many ways to be fraudulent.” Read that a few times so that it will sink in. Prominent Australian scientists are telling us that there are serious issues of corruption in the science. But why? It all comes down to incentives, and human sinfulness, as I noted in my previous piece,

“Recognizing that this can happen is basic common sense, humans respond to incentives, and when the wrong incentives are in place it can corrupt any institution. For example, when the incentive in science becomes publish or perish, this inverts the scientific process and method, and the science becomes about the researcher and not the research, because if the researcher does not put out enough studies they will fall behind in their field.”[5]

If the incentive is get funding or go broke, or get published or become a nobody, or some other drive to produce research for its own sake, rather than the pursuit of knowledge, this will inevitably create a system where science is heavily compromised. The Bible teaches us that sin corrupts human nature to the core. We are capable of good and bad. Incentives encourage us one way or the other. Bad incentives will encourage corruption. It is impossible for them to do otherwise.

Again, if you think it is impossible that we could see the death of science in our day. Consider how many policies were instituted in nations across the world in the last few years that were actually based on politics but were justified as being necessary “according to the science.”[6] The idea that science and politics is imperfect, but eventually the truth will win out, is being increasingly proven not just wrong, not just naive, but the wishful thinking of a populous that is incapable of accepting the truth of the world we currently live in. There is big money in science, and when truth or money is on the line, where do you think most people plant their flag?

It would be instructive for you, if you doubt the possibility of progress being lost, to read up about how far ahead the Byzantine world was, technologically, in front of Western Europe in the early medieval era. Then compare what happened to Byzantium under the Muslim conquerors and what happened to medieval Europe under the Church. You cannot get a stronger contrast, in the east relatively advanced academic knowledge stunted and died out, and in the West we have the creation of the universities, the Renaissance, and a host of other sociological and technological advancements that created the modern world we enjoy today. But such progress is not inevitable. It is actually fragile, and a religious ideology which enforces the suppression of clearly observable realities, like men being different to women, is the precise sort of nonsense that could kill science in our day. So too, could the incentives to publish bad papers for monetary or reputational reasons.  

It might not keep you up at night, and if your hope is in the Lord it should not, but it does keep up those scientists who know the extent of the problem, and that should tell us the problem is serious. Will these problems be halted before they get too bad? Only time will tell.

List of references


[2] Some people might balk at me putting this in such a list, but not that long ago this was accepted fact. Elite means the best, and no female athlete comes even close to the elite male athletes, they struggle to compete with the final year high school boys, let alone elite athletes. That we call women’s sport elite, is a very clear example of this kind of issue of blatantly disregarding scientific truth. If you respond, what we mean is “elite for women”, well, you have conceded the point then, haven’t you?

[4] Ibid.

[6] John Roskam, 2023, “The Truth Is Out There: COVID-19 Was About Politics, Not Science” https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/the-truth-is-out-there-covid-19-was-about-politics-not-science

at

No comments:

Post a Comment