The Truth Remains Revisited

Because my first attempt had clearly failed miserably--mainly because its oblique nature and irrelevant illustration--I shall use a different approach to present this issue. As to not leave everyone in the dark about what I'm trying to say, it might be worthwhile to point out that this piece addresses the not-so-scientific conduct of scientists (or those trained in science) regarding scientific matters.

So. Ever since who knows when, people have been working on making this world more intelligible. Be it mythology or science, it's basically the same. They're all means of explaining the natural phenomena. (Subjects beyond the realm of nature, the supernatural or metaphysical or whatever, will not be discussed here.) Whether it's Demeter lamenting her absent daughter or the the sunlight hitting a hemisphere at an oblique angle in that particular period, it's winter that people have in mind. It's like describing the same object with different languages. The observable fact is the same, the method with which it is rationalized is different.

Even though science has come a long way ever since the time of Aristotle, it must be realized that science remains a trial-and-error process. Once upon a time it was said that the sun and other celestial bodies moved around the earth. But guess what, the movements of planets are easier to understand if it is assumed that it's the earth that rotates the sun, and not vice versa. In the end the old geocentric theory was discarded, replaced by the heliocentric one that makes more sense. (The geocentric theory was widely accepted even though it is the latter that's true.) If one were to look upon the history of science, similar episodes were to be found in every step of its way. There's nothing wrong about that of course, that's just the way science works. It's not too much to say that constructive criticism is the essence of science.

Bearing that in mind, I consider it a disgrace when scientists reject a new, better finding out of personal sentiment alone. It's perfectly okay to do so when that new theory/finding has been proven refutable (or not much better than the old one). The problem is when novel findings are rebuffed because scientists are just too stubborn to let go of their old views. Worse still, at times it's just their egos getting in the way.

Some prominent examples are these: antibiotics' ineffectiveness in most cases of upper respiratory tract infection; bacteria being the chief culprit in peptic ulcer; continental drift. And yet, antibiotics are still prescribed profusely, thus causing more and more resistance by the day; antibacterial agents are seldom used for peptic ulcer medication; and the actuality of continental drift not acknowledged by the scientific community until thirty-something years following its originator's death.

The world--or the truth--remains, it's just our understanding that evolves. When it's been established that our current knowledge isn't sufficient enough to explain the natural phenomena, shouldn't we revise it instead of clinging to it desperately? Isn't that what science is all about? I rest my case.