Can and should Science be neutral?
We are all taught in our classrooms that science is free from bias. This is mainly because we view a scientist as a sort of superman. The scientist is the modern day monk, free from desire. The scientist is not a human anymore, the scientist once he dons the white coat becomes a camera. It is only thanks to the scientist’s unique ability to shed his skin, that we are able to get objective, unbiased, value free science. This view of science is of course hogwash. I will outline the reasons I feel this below.
The process of selection is in itself biased. A scientist cannot study all observable phenomena. The scientist has to choose what he wants to study. This involves a selection process, a selection process that will inevitably involve value judgements and desires. A simple example of the truth is this can be found in the scientist’s ability to justify his research. When asked why the scientist is studying a certain area rather than another. The camera scientist must merely shrug his shoulders; a camera takes no choice over what it captures. However the majority of scientists could defend their reasoning for a specific area of research, thus their selection contains bias. Given an infinite amount of time, the scientist could indeed become a camera. However the scientist is also finite and thus has to choose what he wants to study.
Now if science is not completely neutral or free of bias. Should that limit the respect we hold for science? I would argue that it should not. First of all it allows us to view the scientist as a human being. He loses his quasi mystical status, but he gains the ability to be a fully realised human being again. Should we be fearful of the selection process? Again I would argue that the answer has to be no. In fact the selection process makes science far more efficient. For the scientist who we view as intelligent people are able to choose the problems that they think is most important. The selection process actually exposes a greater truth that the camera theory of science. It exposes the truth of what the scientist really thinks matters. If we trust scientists then we as human beings also become aware of those problems that we should care about. We gain far more from a selective science than by a neutral science.
I am arguing for a more humane understanding of science. It is one however that requires faith. The faith lies in how we view the scientists. In my understanding of science, trust in the scientist is needed even more. He is no longer a quasi-God or a machine. He is just an intelligent human being trying his best to understand and conquer problems. We must trust that his interests are useful. That his interests help us understand the world and universe we live in with greater clarity. Our faith so far has been justified. The scientists have given us gifts and knowledge that previous ages would have considered miraculous. The scientist however is just a person, but we must trust in people.
By Lloyd Duddridge
