Does Science Tells Us the truth Essay

In the American heritage Dictionary of the English Language, science has been defined as â€Å"the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomenon† (Gottlieb, 1997). But can these explanations be equated to truth? Through out history, science has explained myriad occurrences in the universe. However, until today, many still questions the validity of scientific knowledge in relation to its truthfulness and the veracity of its claimed truthfulness. According to Gottlied (1997), science is â€Å"an intellectual activity†¦designed to discover information†. This information is then organized and used to create a meaningful pattern that can explain natural phenomenon (Gotltieb, 1997). It is also said that the main purpose of science is to collect facts that discern the â€Å"order that exists between and amongst the various facts† (Gottliedb, 1997). The ability of science to discern and collect facts to give meaningful explanation of the causes and effects of natural phenomena becomes a way of discovering the truth. Without science there would be no discipline to work on these explanations and the truth will be left undiscovered and mankind will be left in the dark wondering about things. Does science tells us the truth? Or is it concern with the pursuit of truth? According to Esting (1998), â€Å"scientists must understand that it is moral cowardice to dissociate the practice of science from the pursuit of truth†. This only means that scientist should use science in order to discover the truth and inform the people of what lies behind every scientifically explainable phenomenon. In addition, Esting (1998) also mentioned that the mere fact that science is but a mere creation of men, does not change the purpose of science, which is the pursuit of truth. For example, according to the article, ‘What Is’, versus ‘What Should Be’ (n. d. ), it is mentioned that science is more concerned in explaining the ‘what is’ truth of things, thought it cannot provide the facts of the ‘what should’ truth of things. Moreover, the article also stated that â€Å"science knows the truth of nature, but only on the material side and incorporates technology to explain how to achieve and prove this fact. In order to explain this claim, take the case of pure science principle of the freezing point of water. Science tells us that water freezes when temperature drops to zero degrees Celsius. In this regard, technology then suggests and explains the various ways on how to drop the temperature to zero (‘What Is’ versus ‘What Should be’, n. d. ). Meanwhile, to answer the question, Cross (200) mentioned that the best way to determine whether or not science tell us the truth is to understand how scientists think and how they arrive at their conclusions. According to him, the existence of science is for the discovery and understanding of human nature apart from the fact of existence of men. In order to understand the laws of nature, we gather facts and formulate theories to explain every phenomenon. These theories try to explain why things happen, why things did not happen and why natural results are unavoidable. The results of these queries by the scientists are then published and made known to the public for whom the information of the conclusion is intended for. Once these conclusions are released, they became open to scrutiny and other scientists try to prove wrong these findings by conducting their own experiments and data gathering; or by modifying these conclusions based on their own findings (Cross, 2000). When scientific findings and conclusiosn remain unchallenged, they become the working guidelines for human actions, which then become ‘facts of life’ and the ‘truth’. Because many people trust how science works, science has become their only way to tell the truth and at least explain the truth about things (Cross, 2000). As it is provided by Cross (2000), science â€Å"has been hugely successful in giving us explanations of the world around us†. However the explanation as to whether or not science does tells us the truth, lies on the determination of what the truth is or what the truth is all about. According to Bradley (2004), even Einstein, one of the greatest scientists of all time, who showed and discovered the ‘truth’ about things, â€Å"showed that everything is relative† (Bradley, 2004) and â€Å"that truth itself is relative† (Bradley, 2004). The relativity of what the truth is also results to the relativity of the findings and conclusions of science in relation to the truth and how people perceive what the truth is. Finally, science is never an infallible aspect of human existence. There are times that science cannot also explain certain phenomenon, not at the present at least. But, this should not be seen as to mean that science does not tell the truth but rather, its own limitations and the vagueness of life itself, hides the truth from even among the greatest scientists of our time. If men would live in doubt of the truth offered by science and scientific knowledge; then â€Å"all science becomes futile; the search for objective knowledge becomes futile; and no scientific knowledge gathered to date can be true†(Gottlieb, 1997).