How
do you “know” what you “know”? I know that humans evolved from apelike
ancestors that most probably started out as some form of bacteria. I also know
that God created the world in his own time-frame of seven days (but really, as
an immortal being, who can understand what a typical length of His/Her day
is?). I am an engineer (scientist that cares about economics). I am a Christian.
I attend a rigorous program (ranked top ten for Chemical Engineering
nationally) and have devoted my career to making scientific advances available
for public use. My roots run deep in the North Dakota Red River Valley. I am
the proud daughter of a God-fearing, Lutheran farmer/rancher. I am also the
only member of my family (both maternal and paternal branches) to major in
STEM.
I
have one foot firmly in the logical, black-and-white world of science. The
other foot is rooted in my Christian beliefs as a Lutheran. Some would conclude
that what I “know” about science contradicts what I “know” about religion (or
vice versa). However, I do not feel any tension in my two spheres. My feeling
comes from the irrationality or arrogance of human nature (or Descartes radical
individualism) in assuming that if the individual believes it whole heartedly,
it must be true. This natural human arrogance is very different from Descartes
arrogance as indicated in the following quote.
“…
although I judge that those of which I here make use are equal to, or even
surpass in certainty and evidence, the demonstrations of Geometry, I yet
apprehend that they cannot be adequately understood by many, both because they
are also a little lengthy and dependent the one on the other…”
Here,
the arrogance is displayed by the distain for anyone who disagrees as they are
obviously not intelligent enough to understand the argument (according to
Descartes). The arrogance or irrationality of human nature I am proposing is
the tendency for humans to be able to assimilate ideas that seem as though they
do not fit together. Humans can “know” any number of things (no matter how
logical or illogical it may seem to others) based on the individual’s way of
thinking and experience.
For
example, historically, everyone believed absolutely that the world was flat
although there was no real evidence. When disproved, most people were
distrustful until they actually experienced being able to cross the ocean
without “falling off” the edge of the Earth.
The
irrationality of human nature has significant impact on the presentation of
science. An excellent example is the manipulation of Rachel Carson’s “Silent
Spring” (A novel on the negative impact of pesticides on the environment.
Follow this link for more info http://www.rachelcarson.org/SilentSpring.aspx).
This work was published in three formats: an article in “The New Yorker”, a
book recommended by Book of the Month Club, and an episode of the CBS Reports.
The article was geared to appeal to urbanites concerned about their own
personal health. The book was framed to concern suburbanites (read white,
middle-class housewives) interested in their property and community. The TV
reports targeted a male audience. As the publishers of “Silent Spring” were
aware of the core values (stubborn beliefs that could not be changed) of the
public, they exploited the concerns of each group to get their message across.
This ended with a government inquiry into pesticides and increased regulation
with the eventual development of the Environmental Protection Agency.
By
understanding the “arrogant” beliefs of each group as well as understanding
that an individual can be a part of two seemingly conflicting groups,
information can be presented to appeal to individuals. This can be useful in
the “science wars”, politics, religion, and even product advertisement.
Hi Devon,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you have said about science being something that puts beliefs in conflict. Is like I have said in my post, that as human beings we tend to just look at the evidence and go based on that, its like a robot, they are given the information and then do whatever they are programmed to do, this is similarly to our faith and science.And because of that, like you have said, its discussed in politics, religion etc. With Rachel Carson's "Silence Spring", it did seem that her writing was like a threat to the government because of her giving awareness of what that chemical was doing to the environment, primary seen it in birds dying and affecting humanity. That's when we see that science impacts humanity.