How wrong-doing scientists erode public faith in science.

The overwhelming consensus among the scientifically informed is that there’s no definite proof of the existence of God. Furthermore, by definition, it’s impossible to furnish such proof.

Some believers are strongly sceptical about the methods of scientific enquiry, and reasonably so- none of us should be expected to accept claims that we do not understand.

There are, after all, many ways in which scientists might make mistakes. For example:
  • Methods are unsound.

  • Quantity of data gathered is inadequate.

  • Findings do not support the conclusions drawn.

  • The study does not add new knowledge to the field.

However, a scepticism of science in general can be taken too far.

For instance, when an author of a scientific report is found guilty of committing malpractice- by falsifying data, misstating methods, results, or conclusions of a study, or fabricating results- sceptics may conclude that this author and this particular incident are representative of all scientists and all research studies.

A more appropriate, measured response would be to assess the scope of damage wrecked by the flawed study and the extent of its influence upon others in its field, and to check whether other researchers have made similar errors, intentionally or otherwise.

Despite feelings of disappointment, anger, and disgust, one need not jump to the conclusion that other scientific studies have been rendered worthless by this particular incident, unless there is good reason to do so.

Some religious proponents cite examples of such breaches of trust by scientific authors as their main reason for rejecting the body of scientific discovery as a whole.

This is similar to cutting off the nose to spite the face- to avoid the sting of betrayal, one goes overboard, tries to set up protective barriers, and declines all possible contact with scientific research.

By rejecting a vast body of important knowledge based on a small minority of offences, this simply impedes personal development and mental maturation.

It’s far better to identify and confront gaps in understanding, and begin the long, arduous, but extremely rewarding process of filling those gaps, than to remain unable to assess the quality of scientific studies for oneself.

We shouldn’t be naïve or complacent about the motives and moral values of scientists- they’re humans too.

Ideally, scientists are driven by the desire for scientific progress and discovery, and aspire to accrue benefits for humanity.

Keep in mind that researchers are affected by numerous other influences and pressures, such as the desire to build up a reputation, to make important discoveries, to win financial backing and earn a living, and to spread their beliefs and hypotheses.

The public needs to maintain an awareness of these factors, and bring a healthy dose of scepticism and critical thinking into their examination of scientific reports, without succumbing to paranoia.
comments courtesy of Disqus

background image