Science, here defined as the natural sciences, is often regarded as “truth”, something that is certain, logical (reasonable), unchanging, and when projected further often becomes a dogma. A colleague once said, “In the world of science, every statement must be based on data.” Even in that narrow context, the power of science as absolute is scary. The polarization of thinking about science, whether consciously or unconsciously, could affect our decision-making in everyday life. How could it not? We, humans, have been endowed with senses to observe nature, the greatest laboratory provided by God. Thus, there is no space and time without science. Science is in our daily lives.
Etymologically, science comes from the Latin word “Scientia”, which means knowledge. Before the development of the scientific method, knowledge was known as natural philosophy. The separation of philosophy from knowledge itself occurred in the era of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Francis Bacon (1561-1626), and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Francis Bacon’s Empiricist thought emphasizes that we believe in positive facts unearthed through scientific methodology. Scientific methodology serves as a filter for empirical truth, and all statements that have passed through it are placed within the realm of sense (= scientific). On the contrary, what cannot be empirically proven will fall into the realm of nonsense (= unscientific). Quoting Muslih (2010), aesthetics (“painting is beautiful”), morality (“deeds are unjust”), and metaphysics (“God is Almighty”) are nonsensical.
I have spent most of my life in the world of science. I am both a witness to and an actor of the principles of scientific methodology. I was struck by statements (words) and facts (acts) that showed what Feyerabend called “authoritarian science” (Feyerabend, Against Method). When students defend their thesis or dissertation, I pay attention to whether the thesis has followed scientific principles, from problem formulation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusions. Gaps in one of the stages (for example, students do not provide a research hypothesis) will prompt discussion of why students pass that stage. The stages of the scientific method must be carried out exactly as per the default. The authority of the steps in the scientific method has not fallen (at least until now).
In the modern world, science has become authoritarian not only because of its rationality, but also because of “propaganda” through industry, technology, and scientific institutions. When Whittaker proposed the concept of the 5 Kingdoms Classification in 1959 (Hagen, 2012), it took 10 years for the concept to be recognized and widely used in various biology textbooks. This is related to changes in the educational curriculum that were influenced by the “environmental movement“. With its ecological background, the classification of the 5 Kingdoms was finally accepted. Ironically, the 3 Domain Woese Classification proposed in 1990 was adopted by various textbooks more quickly. Advances in sequencing technology and computer science influenced scientists’ paradigm shift from evolutionary thinking (such as Whittaker) to phylogenetic thinking (such as Carl Woese). So, the book publishing company is responsible for the public acceptance of science. In Indonesia, the most widely used biology textbook translation is Campbell Biology. Thus, we can imagine the polarization of biological science among Indonesian teachers, lecturers, and students if they were to read only Campbell’s version.
The scientific community also plays a role in cultivating science. When Thomas Kuhn introduced his idea of Normal Science, he began his exposition with the historical journey of science that began during the Renaissance. For Kuhn, the scientific community was simply repeating existing scientific methods (a situation called Normal Science) rather than making a new invention or breakthrough. Historical records show that when a new theory emerges, the authorities and scientists reject and isolate its discoverer. The geocentric vs. heliocentric debate is classic proof of how authorities turned against Galileo Galilei. In the modern era, history repeated itself. The Continental Drift Theory of Alfred Wegener (also known as the Continental Drift Theory) was considered absurd and rejected by the geological scientific community. Fifty years later, the younger generation finally saw the evidence and acknowledged its truth. By that time, Wegener had died in a hurricane at the North Pole, the site that inspired his ideas about floating continents.
New ideas or thoughts are always challenged, more because of the subjectivity of scientists who are worried about losing influence in the academic world. Lenoir stated that “knowledge is the result of interpretation in which the object of knowledge and the observer (interpreter) do not stand separately from each other”. In other words, science is never free from researchers’ subjectivity. I might say there is always a gap in what we know. By this understanding, we can be open-minded, especially toward new ideas that may not follow the scientific method.
References:
Hagen, J.B. 2012. Five Kingdoms, More or Less: Robert Whittaker and the Broad Classification of Organisms. BioScience 62(1).
Muslih, M. 2011. Pendidikan Islam dalam Perspektif Filsafat Ilmu. HUNAFA Jurnal Studia Islamika 8(1).
atthecorner 