Many people find the thought of science very comforting. It helps explain
the world around us whether it’s talking about the makeup of the human body,
global warming, or research in medicine. From a young age, we have been taught
various scientific facts – facts that we simply accept because our teachers said they
were true. However, without witnessing the information, how can we be certain
that it is scientific truth? Sure there are some topics in which you perform labs for –
like gas testing, titration, or collisions – but how about topics at the atomic level?
Throughout history, there have been a series of debates regarding the
question, “Does science give us truth?” Many scientists and philosophers would
answer this question with a different view in mind, such as the instrumentalist,
realist, or conceptual relativist view (you’ll learn more about each view in this issue
of Ecneics Magazine). If you ask me, I view scientific truth as a mixture of the
instrumentalist and the realist view.
Firstly, in terms of the instrumentalist view, I agree with the statement that
scientific theories are not necessarily literally true. For instance, the standard
theory of matter describes protons and neutrons as a product of quarks. Although
scientists have done numerous researches on this subject, how is the average
person supposed to believe this is scientific truth without proof? Personally, my
definition of truth is something an individual can witness or is physically present – a
type of materialistic view. Without proof, we must act as if the information given to
us is true because it allows us to understand and predict further topics in the
subject of science that we are able to observe.