Scientists are Human

In the last post, I emphasized the fact that science is a process. Over time it produces good results, but at any given moment in time, it can be way off. Another, factor that we tend to forget is that scientists are human. While this statement is obvious, we often forget to acknowledge the implications of it.

Scientists are people just like people who are not scientists. They have hopes and aspirations; goals and objectives. They have families, social ties, and political leanings. They have beliefs and assumptions and inclinations. And sometimes these things get in the way of their science.

Just like the process of science is self correcting over time, the biases of one scientist are compensated for by opposite biases of another science. And, again over time and over a large number of people, it sorts itself out.

Consider the scientists in Jurassic Park. There is Henry Wu, a young scientist trying to make his mark in the world. There is Dr. Grant who's primary concern is funding for his digs. There is Ian Malcolm (a mathematician actually, not a scientist) who's primary concern is supporting his theory. And there is Dennis Nedry, the computer scientist, who does not feel that he gets enough respect.

Martin Hollis, in The Philosophy of Social Science offers the observation "The schoolroom image of modern science is one of unprejudiced Reason exploring an independent realm of nature." It is a 'schoolroom image' because it does not hold up in reality. And it certainly does not hold up with these characters.

This is another theme that Crichton explores repeatedly. We cannot take what 'scientists say' and accept it uncritically as though it were the unvarnished and absolute truth. It is not. Over time it does seem to get better. But at any given moment in time, what 'scientists say' is really just another data point.