Science influences every aspect of our lives. It provides a method through which humanity can keep our lives dynamic and continuously progressing. When humanity rejected science, it fell into a dark age. When it embraced it again, humanity rapidly advanced. Without a doubt, science can give us limitless progress.

The trouble with science is that it cannot be communicated simply. Raw scientific data can be very complicated. It is often loaded with mathematical equations and technical jargon. Unfortunately, the average person is not equipped to understand this data; therefore, it needs to be interpreted in a simplified manner. This is where things get very convoluted.

Scientific advances are so important to our society; sometimes they can be very controversial. So, those who are in charge of communicating scientific findings essentially determine how those findings are going to be used by the general population. If a scientific theory is phrased or shown in a way that is not easily understandable, or not immediately recognizable, then the general populace is likely to interpret that scientific finding falsely and use it as a platform to discredit all scientists in a certain field.

Take, for example, the case of global warming. Scientific records clearly show that our climate is changing, our polar ice caps are melting, global sea levels are rising -- and all of it seems to be related to human activity and increased industrial production. Yet, although the phrase “global warming,” was coined by a scientist, the term is difficult to recognize in our daily lives. Cold weather that occurs naturally lead many people to believe the issue of climate change is a fraud. There are entire Web sites devoted to showing that because it is cold outside in Montana, at night, in December, there is no way the globe could be warming. In fact, there have been record snowfalls, droughts and heat waves all over the country, suggesting that our climate is indeed changing. Yet people continue to bash science and global warming remains controversial, partly because of a simple slip in terminology

How could we change this? Firstly, the general population could focus more on understanding science. We must come to realize that scientific findings are best taken as a supplement to improve everyone’s lives, not as a source of divine and definitive answers. Secondly, we could focus on the other side of the equation, putting more effort into making science more understandable, by making science so interactive and so obvious in our lives that it becomes socially abnormal to lack an appreciation and understanding of science.

However, there is another roadblock. Science can come into conflict with large industries, such as oil. Throughout the world, oil functions as a type of societal life blood: when oil prices rise, people worry and economies slump. But if oil prices are low, we use more oil, to the detriment of our environment. When governments or environmental groups point out that oil is not the only energy source available, they are met with an extremely well-funded battalion of oil lobbyists, public relations officers, and advertising campaigns, working in concert to confuse the public about scientific findings and oil’s destructive realities. Among the ten largest companies in the world, six are oil companies – with ample means to get across their profit-driven point of view to the rest of us.

If scientific data contradicts those with great wealth and power, the public may never be able to weigh all the evidence properly. Regardless of how we chose to better understand science, the key fact is that science is not good or evil; it is a medium to progress into the future. It has no sense of morality. As along as we continue to ask questions, science is not dependent on the word of any god. Science is infinite.

Further Reading: The Union of Concerned Scientists’ website includes a Fact Checker section that sets the record straight on climate change and other issues.

    Subscribe via RSS