There is no such thing as "The
Science." Science is not Facts and
it is not Truth. Science is a continuous
series of inquiries that are both prompted and aided by observation,
experimentation, and analysis. The
gathered information is subsequently interpreted through a grid of
perspectives, experiences, and assumptions (both acknowledged and
unacknowledged), and influenced by the purpose of the inquiry. This exercise of inquiry sometimes leads to
the formation of a hypothesis. When a
hypothesis is supported over time through repeatable results by inquirers with
differing perspectives, experiences, assumptions, and motives, the scientist
may propose a Theory.
It seems to me that we have begun to speak of
science as something altogether different from the description above which, as
recently as my childhood, was a commonly shared understanding (perhaps not the
exact definition which is expressed in my own words, but the foundational
elements). While I would expect
hypotheses and theories to be constantly morphing, I would not expect the definition of the
discipline itself to change, nor would I expect new theories to quickly
displace long-standing ones. Yet we've
moved away from science as inquiry and theory toward science as absolute,
authoritative dogma.
In our disputatious time, we wield the
"ignoring the science" sword as if science is a codified, agreed
upon, permanent Fact or Truth...which, of course, it is not. One very obvious demonstration of that in our
current climate is that a variety of scientists whose bodies of work are held in
high esteem, are drawing disparate conclusions about the nature of The Illness
and our responses to it. There are
limited explanations on how this could be.
Either the variables of observation, experimentation, and analysis are
producing conflicting data, or the grid through which the data is being
interpreted, or the purpose of the inquiry are different.
I find it particularly curious how a person
might exalt the opinion of one body of physicians or scientists as
authoritative while labeling those who exalt the opinion of an opposing body of
physicians or scientists as "ignoring the science." Both sides are educated. Both have inherent biases. Both have varying motivations. Both have expertise. Neither has a corner on Fact or Truth.
If it wouldn't be
"better," it would at least be more honest if we ALL acknowledged that
not only we, but those voices (learned and otherwise) that resonate with us are
not purely objective, and "The
Science" is merely informed speculation and not a justification for
shame-based insults.
