Science has long been a champion of progress, heralded as humanity’s only objective endeavor. It has cured our young, alleviated the pain of our old and taken us to the heavens. Science, in its success, has become a model of credibility and a source of authority.
Needless to say there are problems with this type of idealization. Science, just like any other human endeavor, is not devoid of subjectivity. Its credibility can be questioned and its authority should be questioned.
This article is not meant to undermine prominent scientific theory — the author does not aim nor is he in the position to do so. It is, nevertheless, a call away from ignorance.
Last month computer hackers broke into a server at a distinguished climate change research center in eastern England, posting hundreds of e-mails and documents online.
These e-mails seem to present a British and American scientist discussion on the manipulation of data in order to strengthen the case for global warming.
The stolen e-mails, leaked weeks before the climate change meeting in Copenhagen, appear aimed at doctoring a treaty that would reduce worldwide carbon emissions.
It’s troubling when science shows its humanity isn’t it? This is especially the case when science takes a role of authority — a role in our government.
Scientific endeavor establishes itself in empiricism, a belief that knowledge is gained through experience, or more specifically, experimentation. This facet of science is overwhelmingly objective. It presents the world with raw data, data that, if gathered properly, is truth.
Science does not stop there, though. In order for it to benefit society it must be applied. This application of science is the extrapolation of data to fit a certain theory or guiding principal, a paradigm, a la Thomas Kuhn.
The formulation of this paradigm is not empiricism, that is, it is not based on experimentation. Rather, it is an intuitive understanding of gathered data. This understanding can sometimes be a guide to data or a guide from data.
The bottom line is when science strays from empiricism its decisions must be judged in the same manner as the decisions of any supposed higher authority.
Just as we weigh in our minds the decisions of our elected officials we must weigh the decisions of the scientific community.
The scientists at the University of East Anglia are thought to have abused their scientific authority. They manipulated data to fit a certain understanding of science. Is this abuse or is this, essentially, what all scientists do?
The thought of human-caused global warming is probably true, but that’s not the point of this article.
Beyond the scope of empiricism and raw data, science eludes its objectivity. The actions of those at the University of East Anglia have been viewed negatively because these scientists intentionally purported wrong understanding.
I beg this question, however: With exception to intent, when a scientist excludes and includes data from his experiments in order to fit a scientific understanding he believes to be true, what is the difference between this scientist and those at the University of East Anglia? I say nothing.
This is why we as human beings must remain informed having a capable understanding of science. No one should dictate our understanding.
All authority, whether scientific or political, should be for the benefit of humanity. This is only accomplished if we remain informed.
Zien Halwani is a sophomore molecular biology major and an assistant opinions editor for the Daily 49er.