Great idea for a thread,
Java.
It goes without saying that science has its limits. What some scientists lose sight of, though professional habit, is that many decisions they make depend on thought processes that are not--or at least not entirely--scientific.
And that's okay. It's just better, since all of us do this, to be aware. It puts things on a reality basis.
Science can show us ways to beat smallpox. But it can't tell us to try. The decision to
fight, the crucial one in the process, is made on different grounds.
Scientists, focused as they are on the methods and weapons, often leave the other parts of the picture unexamined. Those other factors, thus ignored, become invisible to some individuals. They credit science for more than it has really achieved.
So you sometimes hear scientists saying things like 'We can thank science for beating smallpox.' Well, no. Not really.
Science didn't beat smallpox. Human beings did, doing the things human beings do and thinking the way human beings think. Science provided a method and weapon.
A white coat does not wear itself. It is worn by a human being who remains one the whole time he or she works in the lab, and who remains one long after hanging up the coat and turning out the lights.
That's why exploring the things human beings do, and think, and know has value. This remains the case even if our investigation leaves the lab and takes us farther afield.
The decision to fight smallpox was not science. It was human.
And that decision was important, and consequential.
Archer
All species are transitional.
™ Version 4.2
