Chapter 1 Discussion

Isaac Asimov once said “Though science can solve problems, it is not by ignorance that we will solve them.” This quote given to me by a past biology teacher popped into my head immediately upon completing this chapter. It sums up the basic gist of what the author is trying to say. From this article, I took away that we must take the good of science with the bad. The article explains many different types of science in different lights. None of these different types of “sciences” are bad, per say, but rather should not necessarily be considered science without some sort of methodology attached. This includes religion, magic, and many forms of pseudoscience common in the community to date. The article goes on to explain the flaws in science and how most are the results of some human error gone terribly wrong (i.e. poor judgment, peer reviews, experimenting, etc.). However, though there are definite flaws and harmful effects that can be felt by science, we should not simply discount it. It is something that is neither good nor bad. It just is what it is: facts based upon facts used to create new understandings.

Taking the good from science with the bad is something that I hold high in my own beliefs. Being a senior health science major myself, I have recently been faced with many different forms of science upon completing numerous research tasks placed before me. One must make their own conclusions using their own form of “mental methodology” when concluding whether or not to believe the science set upon them. As the author explains, we must have reasons and methods for what we believe. We must hypothesize, experiment, reason, and conclude, even in the slightest of circumstances. This can often be done at a quick glance—a mental routine that can decipher “junk” science based on past experiences such as “National Enquirer” covers stating Elvis has been spotted in the company of aliens in the middle of Nowhere, Arizona. It does not take an educated or experienced person long to recognize this as a clear fabrication. However, science articles stating that cell phones may cause brain cancer may take even an extremely educated person as its prisoner. It’s a simple method of reading the research and making an educated decision for yourself until sufficient proof is decided upon. Science, for the most part, helps us out.

The flaws of science are not always evident—it may sometimes take a trained eye to spot a fake. However, that does not mean that these pseudo- and junk sciences should lead us to mistrust all scientific studies. To be skeptical is natural—to be unbelieving is another thing entirely. Yes, it is true that many conglomerates have hands in certain science processes. I, for example, am a firm believer in the rumor that oil companies own the prototypes for electric cars to keep themselves afloat. It is also true that cigarette companies and hospitals may “bribe” victims or professionals to kindly restate what they found to be true. However, there were no conglomerates present when Thomas Edison invented the light bulb or when Edward Jenner invented the smallpox vaccine. These were extraordinary acts of true science. Should we turn our backs on science in today’s time when we see so many negative consequences from it, we may miss out on another miraculous discovery; perhaps a cure for AIDS or cancer. Taking the good with the bad is essential if we want to continue improving upon what we have today and what we may have in the future.