A Criticism Of The Supremacy Of Science Essay, Research Paper

`There are several different

criticisms that have been commonly levelled at science and scientists as a

whole.? During the course of this essay

I shall attempt to identify these criticisms and identify the reasoning behind

each of them. The first of these criticisms is

that science has been given similar status to a religion. It was commonly

thought in the early days of science that science would eventually develop a

theory for everything, thereby replacing religion through removing the

ambiguous and the incomprehensible parts of life with which religion

dealt.? In many ways science has

replaced religion in the 21st century, as it has become the object

of faith and even devotion.? A blind

faith has been placed in the unquestionable correctness of science and

scientific research.? It was Emile

Durkheim who first advanced the theory that given enough time, science would

replace all traditional religions to be replaced by a formal, unquestionable

religion based upon science.? It is the

arrogance of many scientists that leads us to believe that scientific theories

are facts, and can be treated as ?truth? replacing religion by explaining the

facts behind the creation and existence of the world.? The problem with this belief that science is unquestionable fact

and can be treated in a similar way to a religion is twofold. First, scientific

theories are advanced through observation and experimentation, these theories

can never be proved entirely correct since they are based only on certain

observations, as the full facts can never be known, a theory can only be said

to be correct in so far as it is correct from the observations made given the

facts available.? Secondly, science and

religion can never be directly linked since they do not overlap in any shape or

form.? Science deals with the physical,

religion with the insubstantial.? In

their very essence the two are diametrically opposed to one another and can?t

be compared.? In short, science deals

with the how, religion with the why.?

Although science attempts to understand the world around us, how it was

created and how we and other creatures came to exist, it can never fully

explain the automated human search for a higher being.? There seems to be a desire within humans to

believe in something larger and greater than that which is visible and

physical, something science can never explain.?

For this reason, science can never replace religion, as it simply does

not explain enough.? It?s explanations

fall far short of what would be needed to satisfy human curiosity.? Religion, in general, does a much better job

of explaining what needs to be explained about human nature. However, Scientists in recent

years have attempted to give their work a status of being unquestionably

correct.? As I have already explained,

the truth of science or the correctness or otherwise of a given theory can

never be entirely proved.? A theory can

only be proved correct in so far as it is correct given a certain set of facts,

and without having all the facts available, a theory can never be given the

status of absolute fact, and consequently, no scientific theory can ever be

proved, although it can be proved false through further research.? However, this strong criticism of science

can be taken even further. ?Karl Popper

put forward the theory that scientific ?facts? of the present day are simply

probabilities, and only hold this status until such time as new evidence

emerges allowing the theory to be dropped or adapted.? Thomas Kuhn took this criticism of scientists even further, he

believed that scientists, for the vast majority of the time, went to great

lengths to fit their experiments to already existing theories, or when new

information was taken into account, and it was simply accommodated by existing theories

rather than new theories being created.?

Kuhn went further in his criticism; he claimed that when new theories

were advanced, it was normally due to a competition between two scientists.? Eventually, one theory would emerge

victorious, however, this emergence, claimed Kuhn, had little to do with the

correctness or otherwise of the theory and more to do with the political

connections and status of the scientists involved in the battle. Feyerabend

takes his criticism of the methodology of science to the extreme and claims

that the scientific experiments are not based on observation of facts, but

interpretation of what was seen.? He

claimed that theories were not so much formulated by experimentation and

careful experimentation, but more through conjecture, metaphysical speculation,

inspiration and revelation.? This treats

scientists as creative and irrational, making observations fit preconceived

ideas, instead of the objective, rational, self-critical people they attempt to

be. A further criticism that has been

levelled at science is that it is heavily dependent on cultural background and

presuppositions, and not the value-free discipline that it is so frequently

thought to be.? This relies on the idea

that a culture will only examine and discover that which is important to that

culture.? Science is currently accused

of ?Eurocentricism?.? This refers to the

western dominance that is exerted over scientific research. The result is that

scientific study revolves around solving problems that afflict the western

world, rather than attempting to solve far more difficult and profound problems

afflicting the third world.? For

example, much funding is currently being given towards finding a cure for

cancer.? A further criticism of western

science is that it is based on economics. Those who benefit most from a

breakthrough in medical science are not those who benefit from the treatment as

patients, but those who benefit as investors as they are the ones who receive

the money from the sale of the treatment to health services and hospitals.? There is also an arrogance about

western methods of conducting scientific experiments.? The western scientists appear to believe that there is only one

way in which to conduct scientific experiments, there are no exceptions or contradictions.? In actual fact, there are many varied ways

of approaching science, and different cultures have different emphasise when

examining the world around us according to their individual culture. In conclusion, the ?supremacy? of

science has been brought about by the arrogance of western scientists.? For many years, scientists, through

deception, have implanted the idea in people?s brains that scientific theories

are unquestionably correct despite all information to the contrary.? In fact, scientific supremacy has been taken

so far through arrogance that the truth of science, as well as being rarely

questioned, has gained the status of religion in our modern society, although

science can never explain the human tendency to a belief in a ?God? or a supernatural

being, nor can it prove to the contrary.?

In this, however, I believe we see even more apparently the human desire

for something to believe in, and despite its many flaws, for some people,

science provides the alternative to a religion.? Furthermore, in the attempt to maintain the belief that all

scientific theories should be taken as gospel, scientists simply attempt to fit

new information into old theories, or when a theory must be disregarded, it is

described as ?unscientific?.? Scientific

theories are also subject to human observation and therefore preconceived

ideas, notions and creative thoughts.?

In this respect therefore, the observations can be made to fit the

preconceived ideas.? The supremacy of

western science over other scientific cultures is also questionable as there

are different ways to conduct science.?

In short, western science has arrogantly given the impression that there

is only one true scientific method, that used by western scientists.? This arrogance has led western peoples to

believe unquestioningly in what scientists say, and those who read it

unquestioningly apparently regard all scientific theory as absolutely

correct.????????????