Sincere Science

Although I find myself curious about and deriving benefit from many areas of human endeavor, science has always appealed to me more than fields such as philosophy, law, medicine, or the arts. We each have our inherent skills and talents that steer us to focus on one field more than another, but we also choose on the basis of the attributes that appeal to us. For example, one may have an analytic bent that leads them to become a lawyer, but one may also just like the way that law establishes an ordered society.

Besides having a mind that is comfortable in the scientific realm, I like science for its sincerity. That is not to suggest that scientists are any more sincere or honest than philosophers or artists, but that they practice a discipline that tends to enforce honesty and sincerity. In other fields of knowledge, one can more easily get away with shading the truth. The practice of law comes readily to mind. Lawyers and politicians (most of them being lawyers) have a rightfully earned reputation for questionable morals and often unscrupulous behavior.

This is not to say that scientists are always ethical or trustworthy. History is replete with occasional examples of scientists who cheated. The difference—and it’s pretty much all the difference in the world—is that their subterfuges are more likely to be exposed. Statements made or published by scientists are more easily verified than in other fields.

A theory or publication in science must be presented in a way that the argument is both replicable and falsifiable—otherwise it’s regarded as unworthy. Other scientists must be able to replicate the experiment and get the same result. If not, the theory is rejected. It must also be falsifiable—meaning that it is stated in a way that it can be shown to be false, if it indeed is. Otherwise it’s useless as a theory. If I pose, for example, the theory that life exists on Mars under a rock, it’s virtually impossible to demonstrate that I’m wrong; for every rock you turn over, I’ll simply maintain that you’ve not yet found the right rock.

Some scientists like to enjoy the limelight and love to have the media sensationalize their work. (Speaking of the media, there’s another area where dishonesty often gets infused in disreputable reports.) But the field that scientists have chosen imposes a certain degree of humility on them—whether they want it or not. Whenever they publish a scientific finding, it will soon be verified or shown to be rubbish by another researcher. It’s a self-correcting process. (And that points out another example of dishonesty in the media: they will rush to publish a sensational statement by a scientist, but not bother to report later when that statement is shown to be wrong.)

The scientific process—when followed appropriately—reveals the truth, step-by-step. Deceivers are exposed, sooner or later, simply by the nature of the discipline. That potential disclosure helps keep most scientists honest and sincere. (I said most.)