EnsidiaGamingCommunity

Hey there Folks,

It's a pretty safe bet to assume that most people reading this, will like me have benefited throughout their lives from scientific discovery. From simple everyday stuff like hot water on tap, light at the flick of a switch, to more impressive advances such as the ability to physically fly around our planet, or peer into the distant reaches of our universe.

For me personally though, just to say I have benefitted from science doesn't really do things justice. It would be far more accurate to say that I am indebted to it; as had it not been for an incubator at the hospital I was born in, I would have most probably lived to the ripe old age of about 15 minutes.

Since science first snatched me from the jaws of death, it has nurtured me all my life; providing me with food, shelter, more information than I could ever hope to learn in a hundred lifetimes and enough high octane entertainment to kill a heavily sedated and extremely mild mannered elephant.

As a result of everything science has done for me, you will not be surprised to learn I am huge fan of it. In fact I would go as far to say that I hold it to be the defining and best characteristic of our species - our passion to know and understand, well, everything!

Sadly, in recent times I have begun to notice a creeping distrust growing in public opinion towards science, and this has come to worry me a great deal. For example, it is not uncommon to stumble across people on internet forums who decry science as the biggest evil humanity faces today. The fact that these people are using the internet as a platform to moan about the pursuit of science is an irony that is apparently lost on them.

A common accusation from this camp is that science is the reason we have nuclear bombs, germ warfare, pollution and any number of modern problems and therefore we'd all be better off without it. Now of course part of this argument is correct, without the discoveries of generations of genius' we wouldn't be able to drop bombs that split atoms on peoples' heads - we'd be forced to just stove in their skulls with a rock instead. And that, though glib, is the basic flaw in the argument. As it's not science that does bad things to people, it's people who excel at that. Take a brief look at the fossil record for the evolution of man and a description as follows is not uncommon:

"Here we have a wonderful example of an Australopithecus, note how the bone structure in the pelvis and legs suggests a bipedal ape... Of course, this particular specimen isn't complete as it appears to have had it's face smashed apart with a blunt instrument of some kind, but I'm sure you get the idea."

Yes sadly, there is an abundance of evidence from both archeology and history which suggests that if there is one thing we have always done well on our long journey through time, its kill each other sideways with great gusto, be it with sticks and stones or ground to air missiles.

Other accusations I often hear aimed at science these days, consist of people complaining that it doesn't provide us with a proper framework to go and live a fulfilling and moral life. Or that it cannot answer the so called, really important questions, like: "Why are we here?" and "Where do we go when we die?"

The moral framework issue is very simply dealt with. Science is not designed to provide us with a framework to live by. It is designed as a process by which we can understand how things work. Complaining that it cannot give you a few pointers on how to live your life is similar to accusing higher mathematics of being rubbish at helping you digest food.

However, if we just ask the right kind of question, then science rewards and enlightens us. For instance, it can offer some very convincing answers as to why we create moral codes in the first place. The theory which makes the most sense to me, is that these mental constructs are the product of empathy, a behaviour many social animals such as ourselves have evolved, as a survival benefit to promote harmony within the group. This harmony increases every member of the groups survival chances. It's not that hard to see that a group which pulls together will out compete one which does not.

As far as the "really important questions" go - in my opinion the problem is that these type of queries are again just not the right kind of questions. "Why are we here" is a perfect example of this type of thing. It really is in my view an extremely foolish and childish plea, that is created by nothing more than our restless egos. These ego's insist that we are special and important, and if we are special and important, there must be some special and important reason for us to be here right? My personal answer to anyone asking this question is to grow up.

"How are we here?" On the other hand, is a much more sensible question; and because of this, it is one that science can take a pretty good stab at, and as usual offers some very interesting answers. I'm afraid I don't have the keystrokes in me right now to go into the theory of "Abiogenesis" but Wikipedia is willing and able to help anyone who wants to learn the basics.

When we get to the: "Where do we go when we die" query - we find that science actually does have a great deal of very compelling evidence about this issue. The problem with this particular question is that people are simply so unhappy with the answer that the evidence suggests, that they often choose to believe in any amount of outlandish alternatives instead, to make them feel better. This is perfectly understandable, but it is in my opinion not a very good habit to get into.

Imagine the problems that would be caused if every time we were presented with some news we didn't like the sound of very much, we just chose to ignore the evidence and escape into fantasy. I don't think it would take very long for our society to break down, as each individual chose to remain in a state of self imposed delusion. Facing reality is extremely important for both the individual and the group, as learning from mistakes and coping with adversity is crucial for the development of capable and adaptable, psychologically healthy people. Also, for a group to do well, it's very helpful if they are "all on the same page" at least to begin with.

And it is this issue of dealing with reality that brings me to what I think is most insidious attack on science. I refer now to the growing trend towards a kind of mental relativism, which disturbs me greatly. I suspect it started with some well meaning intellectual discussion about how everyone experiences their own reality. Now we could have lots of pointless debates about how no one can ever be sure that the colour one person sees as "blue" is the same as another person's "blue", and this is all harmless intellectual masturbation in my view, but I believe there is a problem when you start to extend this kind of relativism into a world view.

You see, I feel very strongly that we are all in this together. We share the same world, consume the same resources and by and large, care and worry about the same type of things; hunger, shelter, love, grief, joy, despair etc... My position is that we all inhabit the same reality and that we should be aware of this. We need to work together and be mindful of others, if we isolate ourselves through self-important day dreams and indulge the idea of separate realities, everyone suffers as we withdraw from each other into our own private worlds.

And let's be sensible about this - we do share the same reality when it comes to the crunch. If I get hit by a car, the driver and I can argue over whether we were both seeing the same colour paint job, as the car careers into me at 60kph, but not over the fact that my legs have been broken into lots of little bits. Any amount of clever philosophical musing is not going to change the fact that I am left unable to walk in an agonizing heap with my ankles stuck at strange angles in the radiator grill.

I also worry that if we embrace the absolution from responsibility that the relavatism world view offers, we are entering a realm where no one need be held accountable for their actions. Why worry about what other people think and feel if everything is open to personal interpretation? From this point of view each individual can become as self absorbed a child as they wish to be. I am aware that I am taking the philosophy to its most extreme here, but I do this to illustrate as clearly as I can, the selfishness which is what I see as the core of this kind of thinking.

In contrast, view the world through the medium of science, and everyone is offered the same answers on an completely equal and inclusive footing. The speed of sound is constant whether you are a president or a prostitute. Science is immune to emotional blackmail, is undaunted by wishful thinking or troubled by threats or fears - it simply tells it like it is, to anyone who wants to know and has the intellectual bravery and integrity to accept the answers however much they might upset us. Most importantly, science can demonstrate why it knows what it knows. It asks no one to accept anything on grounds of faith, reverence or politeness - it is quite simply, the only definite method to get to truth that we possess. And truth, is the best platform for any kind of honest endeavour we could wish to undertake.

So please, don't take science for granted, nor blame it when it is used by the worst side of our nature to do terrible things, and don't let those who might abuse or warp it put you in a position to mistrust it. And finally, be aware of the incredible arrogance and disrespect involved in rejecting all those centuries of mental rigor that have enabled our species to accomplish so much, merely when faced with a conclusion that is not to your liking. This kind of behaviour is not just bad for you, it's bad for everyone around you too.