13 of 17

Write now Article Tools

It is often assumed that the natural place of science is at the top of our hierarchy of studies because of the certainty it provides. I would like to challenge this idea.
Science can claim an extraordinarily sound basis for its knowledge. The skeptical method, in which every possibility is tested before something can be said to be known scientifically, is a searching tool in the pursuit of truth. There is no denying this, and the fruits are in the array of technologies which we in the rich world take for granted.

However, there are drawbacks to this method. Firstly, there are limits to what the skeptical method is capable of contributing in terms of knowledge. As the bhagavad gita says "there are many paths of reason" and the scientific method is only one. Consider for instance how you know that your friend likes you. Or how you know that 2+2=4. Or how you know that children should not be used to fight wars.

Each of these three examples relies on a type of knowledge which is not open to scientific inquiry. In the first case, your mind is capable of bringing together incredible quantities of data, sifting them through previous experiences to work out whether someone likes you. It is so good at this that there would seem little point in developing a scientific method for it even if it were possible.

In the second case, philosophical questions are raised about how we know anything at all. One paper showed that 2+2 could have as many as 23 different answers, all expressible in mathematical language. Even the scientific method is based on a series of philosophical assumptions about the world which it is not equipped to address.

In the third case, moral values are needed to make a judgment like this. This is easily proven by the fact that others would disagree. Child soldiers form a major part of several make-shift armies around the world. If this offends you, how do you know you are right?

Of course it may never be possible to agree on what we might call our moral knowledge, or wisdom. However, the more we elevate science to the highest place in society, the more we relegate moral wisdom by comparison, and herein lies much of our modern predicament. We have allowed science to be driven not by what would be wise or beneficial to society, but by financial interests. We have mistakenly made the assumption that the market will respond to our moral preferences. It does not. In fact technologies are used very specifically to overcome our normal moral preferences. That is why a fighter pilot can kill a child from 15 000 feet when the same serviceman would not even contemplate doing it with his bare hands.

The great project of the twenty-first century is to make all our other expertise - scientific, economic, diplomatic - responsible to our ultimate aims in life. In the great age of economic expansion we have learned that on their own, science, wealth and democracy cannot make us happy. Now we need to put them to that very use.

Learn more about this author, Matt Carmichael.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about The place of science in our society?
We want to hear your view. Write now!