People who advocate science seem to take offence when one waves their hand at the whole endeavor. I understand one deep into the field of science such as, say, a scientist taking offense, how could they not? But, everyday people do so as well. My guess as to why that is is because so many people who doubt science, have very specific other ideas in mind such as astrology, alchemy or creationism.
I’m not a skeptic of science, in that I really can’t mention any given scientific theory and say why it is flawed. I can mention general instances of science being somewhat less than it’s often said to be, such as by mentioning how rapidly ‘God’s truth’ as far as science goes changes. Or by asking where the all encompassing pragmatic use of science lies, that is we all want a heart transplant when we need one, etc., etc., but exactly where can we say that the world has ever taken a turn for the better because of science?
Neither do I have any alternative ideas. I’m less superstitious/religious than the most cold pragmatic scientist you could find. Blasphemy is meaningless to me, I wouldn’t pray in any circumstance. If we were all around the TV waiting to hear news as to whether a giant asteroid was actually predicted to hit the Earth or simply miss it by a few thousand miles I would take a nap and let people tell me the outcome later. I’ve experienced as many extraordinary coincidences as anyone, and while I occasionally reflect on their possible significance, that is reflect that they may be causally related after all, I don’t for a second think they signify the existence of some pseudo science, yet to be discovered.
So with all that said I still wave my hand at science for the most part. I won’t make a religion of it; with the word ‘fact’ replacing the Christian phrase ‘God’s truth’. Would the world be worse off if the word ‘fact’ was made obscure and people instead spoke only in terms of their opinions, the amount of people who share their opinions and the fairly consistent (but not infallible) network of shared information (information obtained through a generally agreed upon philosophy and ‘scientific’ process) where people can form their opinions on matters of science quicker?
For example global warming isn’t a fact, it’s simply a lot of people’s opinion, many of whom who can actually go into great detail as to why they share that opinion. I respect their expertise to an extent, but I don’t have to feign knowing more about the issue than I do. I’m as acquainted with science as much as the next well read but scientifically disinterested American, but I know no more about the causal factors of the hole in the ozone and such than I do about the casual factors in Noah’s flood. As said I simply respect the expertise of those who do speak on global warming. But, there’s no facts there, the very premise of every issue in the natural sciences is that causal events can be taken down to the chemical, then the quantum level, and we all know that quantum physics is nothing but poetic metaphors. They make use of the paradox as well as any poet could. That’s a real shaky foundation. And I don’t even mean it’s shaky in the pragmatic sense of one predicting the planet will continue to warm if mass pollution continues, it’s a good bet, but how can one associate a word that is used to replace ‘God’s truth’ for those who disbelieve in HIm, with a science who’s foundation at the very lowest layer rests on nothing more than contradictory metaphors (a particle also being a wave, etc.).
So the main question I wish to ask; would there really be any reason to get upset if there were many people who shared my specific attitude towards science. And if there wouldn’t be, then would there perhaps be a better approach in the conversation with those who actually directly oppose certain aspects of science, such as creationists?