The Sciences and Personal Knowledge

            The impact natural sciences have had on me, I think, is mostly evident in the way I think of the world and its problems and solutions. The way science approaches the unknown, by performing experiments and observing the results, and recording the exact procedure so that there can be oversight and repeatable results; the scientific method, is appealing to me personally. In my own life, I try to approach issues as objectively as possible, even political issues. In terms of scientific discovery, personally I have no issue with the scientific method, and am quite happy with it as a result. In a TOK context, the scientific method of course is reliant on our physical senses, and perceiving things as human beings, which shapes the way we do and understand science. We create models to understand things unobservable to the unaided human eye, such as the model of an atom. The issues that the observation method brings up, such as “The Observer Effect” and “Experimental Bias”, while valid points, related to the flaws of observation as a method itself, the question I’d ask in response is; “What is the practical alternative to the scientific method.

As for other areas of life, as I’ve mentioned before, I find that the scientific method/ observation is a good tool for a lot of areas of life unrelated to science. I think that even politics could use the scientific method, or at least use more logic, in that solutions to problems should take into consider the best way to solve a problem, as well as keeping the public happy. Yes, I do acknowledge that science, because it is undertaken by us humans can never be truly objective, but I think because of the transparent, verifiable, and observable manner in which scientific research is conducted, makes it a lot more transparent than a lot, if not most, other methods.

Finally, dealing with the topic of technology, there is a lot technology has done in terms of personal knowledge, not just for me personally. Because the sciences nowadays deal with things unobservable to the naked eye, scientists are dependent on technology, in order to carry out their experiments and record their observations. For me personally, the internet is a major example of a ‘game changer’ in the way personal knowledge is gained. We now have almost all of the collective knowledge of the world at our finger tips. I think the internet has allowed me and millions, if not billions, of people to access knowledge that would’ve been a lot more difficult to find, at a lower price (websites are free, usually, but books are not). I feel that the internet will enable people determined enough to succeed in science (as in people in, say, high school that are interested in science), to educate themselves and aid in their potential discoveries/scientific theories in the future. Science is dependent on the work of those who came before, as Isaac Newton said; “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” The internet has given the average person, and also aspiring scientists, easier access to the work of the giants that came before them. However, it should be noted that the validity of sources on the internet may not be as strong as it is in other forms of media.

To conclude, the continued use of the scientific method and the spread of the internet helps spread scientific knowledge, and may end up accelerating our rate of discovery. 

The Language of Science

               The two texts detail how metaphors are used in science, to either the benefit or disservice of it. Phillip Bail claims in his article that imagery can change the way science or a concept is viewed by people, and gives the example of crime and metaphor to emphasise his point. In the same article Bail argues that the famed author Richard Dawkins’ use of the term ‘selfish gene’ supported the idea of “a Darwinian world that is uncaring to the point of being positively nasty”, and states that this idea may have caused increased resistance/dislike of science. However, Bail does acknowledge that metaphors may be needed to teach science and make it less boring to people, however, at the same time he cautions against taking metaphor at its face value, and looking at the scientific knowledge and meaning behind it.

               With Caleb Scharf’s article, his argument can be described as arguing that the use of metaphor is essential in science. He argues that metaphors help people, even scientists, stay ‘attached’ to the knowledge being discussed, and can give almost ‘unpreceptable’ knowledge, such as quantum physics, or black holes, a grounding in our familiar reality. Scharf argues that if the use of metaphor helps someone’s understanding of a topic, why should it be condemned? Metaphor in science, to this author, is about communicating knowledge, and has, in his words, ‘noble intent’.

               The factors that seem to influence the language choices in science, seems to be mostly related to communication. Literary devices such as metaphors and similes are used to invoke the reader’s imagination, which is supposed to aid in their understanding of an issue. However, as Phillip Bail pointed out in his article, perhaps the metaphor can ‘overtake’ the original knowledge and cause it to be almost exclusively viewed through the lens of the metaphor rather than the knowledge itself. To communicate scientific knowledge in an understandable and possibly more effective manner (depending on the audience), metaphors and other literary devices are necessary (to those sharing Phillip Bail’s viewpoint, it would be more aptly described as a ‘necessary evil’). In the end, we are left with a question of: ‘What do we value more; extreme precision or more understandable communication?’ 

To what extent should scientific knowledge be open to the public?

Gene editing

            CRISPR-Cas9 is a new technology allowing faster, cheaper, and more accurate than previous gene editing technologies. The main ethical issue present here, however, is the idea of gene editing. Like most technologies, there it can be used for purposes considered to be ethical by society or unethical purposes. Once this technology is sufficiently advanced, perhaps inherited disorders or increased tendency to get cancer (for example) could be avoided. However, others may argue that editing our genetics is a bit like playing God and is unnatural. Another argument for its unethical nature is that it could enable ‘designer babies’ which could promote a sort of mono-race or ideal human and eventually cause other ethnic groups to be replaced by these designer babies. However, this does not deal with the question of knowledge openness to the public.

            It can be inferred from history and current events that some knowledge should not be made public, for the sake of public safety and order. Most countries do not have the capabilities of making a nuclear bomb, due to agreements made to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, which would include the knowledge of how to make them. With nuclear weapons, the world can be plunged into nuclear winter. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the higher the risk a nuclear weapon would be used. So, it is only logical that people wanting to keep the human world intact would want to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and knowledge to make them. Gene editing, however, is a bit of a different story. Unlike nuclear weapons, it is not a tool of destruction, but rather a tool of shaping a creation. With gene editing, by making it available to the public, perhaps research could be accelerated by increased usage of gene editing, and people who would’ve normally received inherited genetic disorders would be able to have a better quality of life (if gene editing is used to make sure they avoid receiving the genetic disorder) or even save lives. It can be argued that there is an ethical duty to make this technology and knowledge open to the public if it will save lives. Applying this situation to an in general perspective of scientific knowledge, it can be said that overall, scientific knowledge should be open to the public, to further advance research, or, in applicable cases, to save lives.

            However, as stated earlier, new technology can increase our capability to do things considered unethical as well as ethical things. Sure, with CRISPR and gene editing in general, there is a possibility of saving and improving many potential lives. But, perhaps, if that knowledge was left open to the public, unethical (according to scientific community consensus) acts could be done with it. Instead of removing diseases and disorders, an unethical scientist could increase the chance of the child receiving inherited disease and disorders, for example. If we want to get outlandish, we could even theorise on the possibility that the technology could be used to change humanity as a species and remove its diversity, by enabling the creation of ‘ideal’ human beings, with certain characteristics being preferred over others. Would these ‘ideal’ or ‘designer’ babies result in a sort of ‘cleansing’ of undesired traits? If we use historical knowledge, we can see that numerous people were in favour of using eugenics to remove undesirable traits from people’s genes. The Nazis, for example, sterilised and murdered disabled people and others deemed ‘undesirable’ to them. Would, and could, gene editing be used as well for similar purposes?

            Making scientific knowledge open to the public, must be assessed on an individual basis, as certain ethical dilemmas arise from different technologies. Scientific knowledge can be described as a ‘double-edged sword’ in these cases. Going back to the earlier example of nuclear technology, while we got the technology that could create electric power in a cleaner manner than other technologies, we also got the ability to create destruction of immense scale. The implications and possibilities of particular scientific knowledge should be carefully considered before opening it to the public.   

Source (Learn more about CRISPR here):

http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-crispr-cas9