Embedded Files
Introduction
Introduction
The natural sciences aim to acquire knowledge about the natural world. The scientific method is a key feature of what makes the natural sciences so scientific. The underlying methodology that ​binds all disciplines within the natural sciences together is so important that we may even use it to distinguish "real" or "good" science from "bad" science and even pseudo-science. Within this method, evidence and justification play a very important role.
Each discipline within the natural sciences aims to produce knowledge about different aspects of the natural world. In this sense, each discipline within the natural sciences will tweak its methodology somewhat to fit its particular purpose and scope. Nevertheless, all disciplines within the natural sciences will broadly have a shared underlying scope, methodology and purpose.
At this point in time, we tend to place much trust in the natural sciences. "Scientific proof" has almost become some sort of guarantee of the quality or veracity of knowledge. Unfortunately, this trust can be abused. The cosmetics industry may seduce you to buy their latest anti-wrinkle cream by fiddling with statistics and plastering "scientific sounding language" on the packaging of its products. Research funded by entities that benefit from its findings will often eliminate inconvenient data and truths. If a study (albeit indirectly) funded by a multinational oil company, for example, claims that climate change is not real, we have reason to doubt the quality of its knowledge. In this sense we should also approach "scientific research" on products sold by pharmaceuticals with caution.
It is worth remembering that knowledge from the natural sciences is not necessarily correct, simply because it is scientific. The natural sciences have come a long way since they originated in Ancient Greece (or earlier- depending how you start counting), both in terms of knowledge production and methodology. Our current understanding of the natural sciences and its methodology is primarily based on the most recent developments of the area of knowledge within the last few centuries. Much knowledge that was previously considered scientific, has now been discarded. If your doctor would use Hippocrates' humor theory to diagnose a tumour, you would probably be outraged.
As knowledge within the natural sciences develops, some incoherent knowledge gets discarded and at times even paradigm shifts occur. The natural sciences are in se open to scrutiny, because peer review and falsification are currently part of its methodology. At this point in time, there are some shared methods and values that underpin the nature of knowledge production in the natural sciences. However, these values and shared methods within the scientific community might change over time. In this sense, it is difficult to predict how knowledge within the natural sciences will evolve.
We are now at some sort of turning point in history, where we are able to manipulate the world around us to the extent that it defies human boundaries. Increased scientific knowledge comes with great ethical responsibilities. It is not always easy to establish possible criteria that help us decide whether knowledge acquisition in the natural sciences is ethical or not. These ethical considerations might perhaps pose one of the biggest challenges for the natural sciences in the years to come.
Reflection: How would you translate the word "science" into your language? What does the nuance of your translation imply?
The Value of Natural Science
The Value of Natural Science
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates
Science literacy is the artery through which the solutions of tomorrow's problems flow.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
The natural sciences currently enjoy a great status. This is partly due to its relatively recent successes and achievements. The contributions of the natural sciences to knowledge as a whole are undoubtedly enormous. Fascinating scientific discoveries have helped us understand human nature better, grasp how our planet has evolved and even conceive what the universe may look like. The natural sciences give us so much knowledge that they almost seem to overshadow all other areas of knowledge. Western civilisation went through a major cognitive paradigm shift around the 17th Century. Discoveries by Galileo and Newton challenged the prevalent dominant discourse. A new theory of knowledge primarily based on empirical evidence and reason was created. Scientific evidence soon became synonymous with 'ultimate proof' and religious knowledge was challenged by scientific sceptics. This scientific revolution brought about major changes in the way we thought about the world, particularly in the West. Mankind arguably benefited in many ways from this cognitive paradigm shift and with an increased understanding of the world around us, living standards and arguably education generally improved. Yet, the natural sciences were not always as highly regarded. There have been cases were scientific hypothesis were seen as ludicrous and even dangerous because they did not fit within the dominant way of thinking (cognitive paradigm). Science had to fit in with the world view of the time and not the other way around. Scientists who dared to propose knowledge that was different were often ridiculed (like Darwin) or tried by the inquisition (like Galileo). Nowadays it seems that the tables have turned. Once upon a time, some scientific discoveries were rejected because they did not fit in with the paradigms of religious knowledge systems.
Nowadays, some people reject (their) religion because it does not fit in with the scientific way of thinking. Although the natural sciences have undoubtedly made enormous contributions to knowledge as a whole, we may question whether this necessarily means that the natural sciences offer better quality knowledge than other areas of knowledge. To answer this question, we first need to look at what constitutes good science, how the natural sciences work and what they can produce knowledge about.
​Reflection: Why might some people regard science as the supreme form of all knowledge?
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse