We're supposed to act like Spock, not Dr. McCoy, in scientific inquiry.
"God dammit Jim! He's a green blooded, soulless Vulcan monster!"
Yes, that title is a mouthful, but I had to differentiate science, vs what’s best for humanity. Spock might decide we are a plague on the planet, and need to be eradicated. (I didn’t know Bill Gates’ nickname was Spock?! ;) There might be some truth to that, but most of us would like to remain here for a little while longer.
Ego is the enemy of objectivity in science. Then again, ego might drive the initial theories of science. Was it ego and pride that drove Edison to experiment and fail repeatedly? Or just motivation?
I have many theories (several that will sound like I just pulled them out of my ass), and according to the objectivity of science, I have to accept a few things.
In order to be objective, I have to accept that I will, and should be questioned (and most certainly ridiculed on anonymous social media) to prove my statements, and need to accept that without indignation or butt hurt pride.
The onus is on me to prove the statements. This I am not following. I’m just a lowly assistant, like a patent clerk ;) I do not have a PhD, and do not work in a university to research such claims. I’m asking everyone else to do the work for me. Some theories might be so inflammatory, that others might be inspired to prove me wrong.
Theories are what drive science, and maybe that goes hand in hand with free speech. I am allowed (in theory) to say some wild assed shit, and others are allowed to disagree.
Down through history, there have been many scientists who were threatened with imprisonment or death for their theories.
More recently, people’s careers and livelihoods have been destroyed because of personal view points or theories.
I remember being taught about objectivity as the basic premise of science back in the 5th grade. People start with a theory, and then have to objectively study that theory to prove or disprove it. It made sense immediately. How come some adults don’t understand this? Ego?
There is no “The Science.” (I’m being naive here, but should we give the guy a break on this one? Did he say it once, or multiple times? I’m not gonna look it up. I do know if I was being interviewed on TV a hundred times, I’m bound to fuck up at least 20% of the time).
“The Science” is not science, because theories and science are always supposed to be questioned, forever, as it evolves, and new data come out. Some religions call themselves “The Truth.”
I was just watching video of the new Webb telescope, and those images have already changed some previously accepted science about the origin of the universe.
By the way, I first heard the word onus in reference to religion. The onus is on the believer to prove to me that God exists, not for me to just believe it, because you said it.
I am not against religion in ways that I was previously (and arrogantly). I have a future article titled, “God dammit, I’m heading north of agnostic!”