“Science is the quest for knowledge.”
Not the way it’s been practiced by Darwinists or by global warming fanatics.
With them, the science is settled.
Science, true science, requires extreme humility. It requires a recognition that new findings might at any time undermine the foundation of cherished theories and formulas and worldviews. It leaves the door open to new ideas, even though the ideas may be unsettling. It does not proclaim theory as fact, and it is never quick to declare observations as facts. The practitioner of true science understands that observations can sometimes be misleading.
In short, the science is never settled. On anything. Ever. Humility is required in the practice and teaching of science. Unfortunately, humility is a commodity sorely lacking among those who are declared to be experts in any field. Setting someone up as an expert on a subject elevates that person to an almost godlike position. The rest of society awaits the expert’s proclamations. Can such treatment promote humility in that person? Will it not instead promote the exact opposite? It is a rare person indeed who, recognized as an expert, is willing to admit openly that the whole edifice of his beliefs is like a house of cards. One card pulled from a lower level could cause the whole structure to collapse.
It is a rare person who, recognized as an expert, would be willing to start all of his discourses with a disclaimer, “Please remember that anything I say is based upon theories that I believe today to be true. However, at any time in the future, it is possible that these theories will be proven to be incorrect, and therefore any opinions expressed by me are necessarily contingent upon the stability of those theories.”
And, for those who cling to the expert’s opinions, will they not be disinclined to hear any contrary opinions? Won’t they instead vilify those who contradict the expert?
Instead of a quest for knowledge, science has become a tool for certain groups to get their way in policy decisions. For global warming, it is Copenhagen. For Darwinism, it is the promotion of a worldview that says that no God is needed. That all can be explained without Divine intervention. It marginalizes faith and promotes a darkness of the soul that causes despair. And dissenters are treated shamefully.
It requires a quest for the correct answer which overwhelms possib le embarassment at having the answer wrong in light of new data. Even more, it requires an emotional detachment from theory or hypothesis, an ability to let the data reveal the answer--or lack of one--without prejudice, only an attempt to determine if the explanation of a phenomenon is correct.
This, of course, becomes increasingly difficult to achieve as soon as one's theory catapults one to prominence, unless one has the guts (and good fortune) to be the first to step up with new data and say "I/we got it wrong."
One must never lose sight of the fact that knowing what something is not, what process did not cause a specific result, what factors were inconsequential, can be equally or even more valuable than knowing specifically what did.
As Edison might have said, "we know what doesn't work", and that advances knowledge as well.
As for me, the more I learn, the less I know, for each answer only raises more questions.
BS