The Problem with the Scientist Mindset
There’s a new kind of mindset out there, one that believes technology and science will be the saviors of humanity. These folks give genetically modified food as a solution to world hunger, nuclear power as a solution to the world’s energy needs, and the internet as protector of freedom.
Only this blind trust in technology and science is as dangerous as religious fundamentalism. Bear with me.
You see, the kinds of people who believe “science is the solution” have been raised by schools and excelled within their environs. They’re usually of above average intelligence and have a high level of specialization in their chosen field. And that’s the beginning of the problem.
Because science has become so specialized that no one person can grasp the entirety of even one branch. The human race is learning at a faster rate than it has ever in history. There isn’t enough time to assimilate everything, and get the big picture view.
People who study genetic engineering usually have no background in agriculture. People who study agriculture usually have very little background in biology. And people who study biology miss a lot of ecology. And yet all of these areas of study to understand the impact of releasing genetically modified organisms into the world. So genetic engineering (as a field) progresses onwards, without understanding it’s own effects clearly.
So genetic modification is new and sexy (to scientists), it’s so complicated and technical and such a radical new field. But they don’t realise the implications for the biosphere and the real dangers of releasing supermutants into the wild. And then we have lots of money behind the scientists to produce something. So they come up with a corn plant that produces it’s own toxins to kill bugs that try to eat it. Then they rush to release it and make a profit. Then we find out that humans can’t digest the frankenfood correctly and people get stomach cancer. Woops, we just didn’t get enough testing done.
Even more worrying then specialization in science is its lack of a moral foundation.
There’s no whole, underlying purpose to science, other than the pursuit knowledge. Most people would say the betterment of humanity too, but that isn’t really science’s fundamental purpose. It is the pursuit of knowledge, at any expense, no holds barred. Great scientists realize the need to temper scientific pursuit with gut instinct and a holistic view (Einstein, Buckminster), but the majority blindly pursue the next big discovery. Along the way thousands of animals are treated like tools in the pursuit of the highest calling - making more facts.
So why is science so afraid of religion?
Because it supposedly stifles the freedom of thought and questioning. But does it really, or does it impart universal truths? Take the Christian idea of heaven and hell, for example.
On the surface level, you either are a Christian or you are not. You believe and you go to heaven, you don’t and you go to hell. But look past that. Could heaven and hell be metaphors for existence on this earth? Ah! Act righteously (follow the Christian ethic), and the world becomes heaven. Don’t follow it (act selfishly, break commandments), and your life becomes hell.
These themes are present in every religion, and they help provide unity to the totality of existence. Don’t be afraid of religion, see its worth and then move on.
Related Posts:
December 8th, 2006 04:25
You’re wrong. Sorry. Flat out wrong. Science isn’t afraid of religion. Religion is afraid of science. But even moreso, you present this as science or religion - it’s a false dichotomy. While religion is a faith, science is a method. Science is a way of learning, of cataloguing, of understanding. It never, ever claims to explain anything beyond what is presented before the observer. We, as humans, are simply always enhancing our ability to observe.
You say there is no underlying purpose to science, no morality. This is akin to asking what the underlying purpose and morality is of a hammer, or a fishing pole. Of course there isn’t one, they are tools. Science is a tool.
The only problem that occurs in your scenario above is that the “frankenfood” is rushed to make a profit - but that isn’t the scientist’s doing. That isn’t what they intended. That’s corporate greed. That’s not elitism of knowledge, its exploitation by the rich. The scientists are the victim as much as the alleged stomach cancer victims.
So don’t go railing against the scientific mindset. You’re comparing apples to oranges, or really, apples to pillows. Science vs. Religion is a false dichotomy. They are about different things. They are different things. Religion is about giving answers. Science is about finding them.
December 8th, 2006 15:03
Kevin,
The scientific mindset sees no value in myths for the human body of knowledge. Science itself is a progression towards a hypothetical absolute truth. Only we’ve yet to get to any absolute truths. I’m saying that we need a grand view of where we should be going, and where we want to be, and myths are the best way to communicate that.
Pure knowledge is meaningless without wisdom behind it. Science lacks wisdom. Or a method to find and incorporate it.
I’m not saying science is fundamentally worthless, I’m saying that the body of an idea that has brought humanity this far has no soul, and that it desperately needs one.
Where do we want science to take us?
December 11th, 2006 10:51
We don’t need myths, we need better education that includes a gestaltic comprehension of mankind’s past and current situation and encourages open debate on where we want to go from this point and how to get there. Science provides the best method available for how to get there and the only means of separating fantasy from reality, a separation that is greatly lacking in the majority of people in the US. Ergo, we need the scientific method to be taught and understood; it’s as important as learning to read. The last thing we need is more religion, with its mythological dogmas that serve only to enslave the masses, through fear, to the benefit of a few overlords.
December 11th, 2006 15:27
I think this post displays a great ignorance of science. examples:
- I guarantee you that geneticists doing work on agriculteral plants know a lot about agriculture
- I also guarantee that agriculteralists know a lot about biology and genetics.
-science is not afraid of religion, most scientists are rarely think about religion, though there are some that are religious, some that are not.
I agree that in of it self science has no morality, it is simply the pusuit of knowledge, however most scientists and engineers (who are more relevant to the discoussion, as it is engineers who apply science) do spend time thinking about the ethics of their work, and ethics trainng is required at many labs. It’s not a perfect method, but I don’t see that religion has much better to offer. Religion was conceved long before any of the modern scientific ethics issues could even be thought of, as no concept for them existed, and religion has nothing to say on them. Oh, yes people have interpereted the bible to speak one way or another on various issues, but at that point you can basically make the bible say whatever you want. This argument also applies to other religions than christianity.
December 11th, 2006 16:02
MaxPolum,
No, this post does not display a great igonorance of science. I have been a gardner for 4 years. Two years of that working on large organic farms, where I saw this happen firsthand. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that the expert knows nothing compared to someone applying results every day.
The agriculturalists I’ve met know very little about biology and genetics in application to running a productive farm. They study the nutrients necessary for a productive soil, but never look at the biological systems necessary for a productive soil. They come from a close minded approach, one where plants take in chemical inputs and sun and water, and create vegetables. In reality, though, there is a biological process that creates a healthy soil, and a healthy soil creates a healthy plant.
Agriculturalists will learn that there are three primary nutrients necessary for farm production, Nitrogen, Potasium, and Phosphorus. (Or NPK.) Because we have the technology, they will advise farmers to directly apply Nitrogen, Potasium, and Phosphorus to their plants. The result is that the biological process is skipped, and the soil quality suffers, eventually the plant quality suffers too. Again, I’ve seen this firsthand.
Why are you so scared of the idea of myth? Does the idea of greek gods really take a hold and subjugate your mind that much? Do quote like:
“If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destry you.”
really scare you that much? Really have that deleterious of an effect on humanity? Grow up, get over your hatred of religion, look at it honestly, and see the good in it.
March 19th, 2008 21:48
1 year and 4 months late but oh well…
I think what you’re getting at is more along the lines of organic, ethical farming for the benefit of the soul. Science does not exist in this context, because issues of the soul are beyond it’s capacity. It’s like using a hammer to mend clothing. Religion IS seperate from science… while a scientist may be religious the two do not effect eachother beyond the issue of what exactly the scientist wishes to research or participate in.
You’re also looking at scientists and experts in the wrong way. Scientists and experts provide information to people who wish to deeply understand the whole picture because all that investigation usually boils down to the verification of a simple claim. Like you say, the use of NPK is beneficial to plants but not good in the long term for the soil… it would have been a scientist who verified that claim… and while his research may have been long winded, we can shorten it down to less than a sentence. The important thing to remember here is that scientists are not the ones who make the decisions… they simply feed information to the people who have the wider view, for instance the farmer, so that they can make the informed decisions with their newfound greater understanding of the wider picture.
It can be said that while we may be able to look at the wider picture, it is only when we study it closely that we can fully appreciate it’s true majesty. Seeing a clock is an everyday thing, but it’s much more fascinating to take one apart and begin to understand how it works… and from then on maybe seeing a clock on the wall might be that bit more significant to us.
While I agree that there is indeed a problem with the scientist mindset… I do not feel you have put your finger on it just yet.