The science of love by Unitopia / Stefan
Science [Latin scientia = knowledge]
Science has, at the very least, two meanings. The first meaning is most commonly held in the so-called hard sciences (the natural and physical sciences) and relates to the systematic observation of nature from which laws and theories are developed.
These laws and theories, according to most definitions, may be supported or disproved. This is made possible by the fact that, once published, scientific results become public. As public knowledge, new findings (and the theories derived from them) are subject to peer review and, when appropriate, replication.
The other meaning of science is far more vague, often cropping up in relation to the so-called soft social sciences.
Political science, sociology and psychoanalysis, for instance, rely on theories. But these theories often rest on selective, scant or downright questionable empirical research. And they tend to use correlational or multivariate instead of causal experimental designs.
Correlational studies merely tell us that, in certain circumstances, two variables of interest occur together in some degree of statistical probability, whereas multivariate designs look at any number of variables and attempt to determine their probability of occurring together.
Most agree that no definitive causality can be determined with either correlational or multivatiate analyses (although debates, as with most everything else in life, continue here). And some philosophers like David Hume critique the entire notion of causality.
Without getting too complicated, we could say that most reasonable thinkers would agree that correlational and multivariate studies in any branch of science do not adequately explain why things happen.
We often hear the word “link” when scientific results are reported in the media; for instance, “Scientists Find Link Between Dopamine and Obesity.” But, again, this link doesn’t tell us what causes what.
“It’s possible that obese people have fewer dopamine receptors because their brains are trying to compensate for having chronically high dopamine levels, which are triggered by chronic overeating,” says Wang. “However, it’s also possible that these people have low numbers of dopamine receptors to begin with, making them more vulnerable to addictive behaviors including compulsive food intake.” (Source: Scientists Find Link Between Dopamine and Obesity in Brookhaven National Laboratory, February 1, 2001 » http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2001/bnlpr020101.htm).
Contemporary depth psychologists and those interested in integrating science, religion and spirituality suggest that a new form of science, beyond immediate physiological, behavioral, social or environmental factors, is needed to better account for the workings of the psyche in relation to the universe and God.
Critiques of science take three main forms: Theological, philosophical and sociological.
Theological critiques of science have two branches. On the one hand theologians warn against falling into the trap of adopting a false moral neutrality that they say some scientists advocate (e.g. with the scientific technologies related to abortion). The other branch relates to the theological claim that conventional science cannot account for nor predict revealed, infused or illuminated forms of knowledge. And some theologians regard theology, itself, as a science—in fact, the noblest type.
Philosophical critiques of science tend to question the initial assumptions upon which results and subsequent theories are based. The role of interpretation is also highlighted, as it relates to the problem of ‘built-in’ biases that influence observation, results and subsequent analysis—i.e. critics say the total problem, approach and solution are biased by the cognitive parameters of the investigator or investigative team.
Karl Popper says that scientific truth claims may only be disproved, never proved. Meanwhile Willard Quine says empiricism contains “two dogmas.” One dogma is the distinction often made between intellectual constructs and facts. The second dogma is reductionism; that is, the belief that naming and meaning are the same.
Sociological critiques of science don’t overlook philosophical issues but tend to focus on the role of social power in shaping, legitimizing and reproducing scientific truth-claims within the broader context of social norms.
Some writers, like Broad and Wade (Betrayers of the Truth, 1982), report actual cases where scientific credentials have been forged and results fabricated. And some cultural theorists, particularly postmoderns, see science as just another conceptual game or ‘fiction’ posing as truth.
The bottom line is that science is complicated, far more than we usually hear on the evening news. But the word “science” still has a strange power to sway the masses, a power arguably out of sync with the realities of its complexity. No wonder some say that the ideology of science has replaced religion as the largest single social brainwasher.
» Archaeology, Aristotle, Chakras, Emic-Etic, Fundamentalism, Galileo Galilei, Ideal types, Myth, Particle-Wave Duality, Phenomenology, Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, Saint-Simon (Comte Henri de), Scientism, Semiology
Add more, report errors or voice your opinion by commenting
