What is factually true? What is morally true? The basis of scientific research lies in its ability to display a universal truth, but is this truth without contention?
One imperative factor when considering any aspect of science or philosophy is the personal belief one holds towards the success or failure of a hypothesis that influences the research in the form of bias. This scarcely seen phenomenon is often the root of decade-long disputes and personal feuds. The fact of the matter is that science in itself is focused on beliefs. Hypotheses are nothing but magnified beliefs and the influence a scientist or engineer can have towards the success of an experiment can extend beyond the research itself.
One such conflict of beliefs that resonates throughout history is the battle between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla. Their takes on power transmission were widely different and highly polarizing. While Edison vouched for the ever-present direct current (DC), Tesla vouched for the revolutionary alternating current (AC). While AC and its periodically shifting voltage allowed for power transmission in houses, DC was still used in smaller scales in various products. The dispute between these two is considered one of the greatest scientific controversies of all time and its repercussions continue to be felt. The irony in this situation, however, lies in the fact that while AC, the more useful and variable of the two was far more beneficial in its applications towards society, Edison’s reputation was the keystone factor in getting his work more widely approved and agreed upon by scientific communities of the world. That, and his money. The main takeaway from this historic battle is that the central factor in other’s acceptance of scientific or engineering work is not the legitimacy of the idea but the public’s perception of it. Managing the masses is something science has always struggled with, igniting revolutionary conflicts such as Newton vs Leibnitz and Keller vs Alvarez. Science, and by virtue engineering, is always held back not always by physical limitations, but often by mental ones.
This impact of stigma can also be traced to the modern world especially with today’s advances in aerospace technology and astronomy. In recent events, there has been a controversial case between Elon Musk’s SpaceX and the United States air force. The crux of the argument is the restriction imposed by the airforce upon SpaceX and the inherently monopolistic view on controlling launches.
The Air Force also aims to expand "the number of competitive opportunities for launch services under the EELV program while honouring existing contractual obligations," so it sounds like UAV will enjoy its current standing for a while longer.
The fact through these complicated abbreviations is that restricting the free practice of science is also a prevailing issue dominating the current scientific community.
In addition, ethical
practices must be considered in evaluating experiments and long-term research. The use of inane technology such as nuclear fusion had brought interest in current times as a result of its potential for greatly surpassing any conventional energy generation technology. The ethics of this, however, is called into question with the success of the research being potentially devastating in its ability to develop unrestricted weapons. Through all of these examples, a predominant issue stands out concerning the perception of certain research by the rest of the world. This perception, whether it be through the lens of ethics, control, or controversy is the keystone factor influencing the scientist during the period of study. As such, it is highly important to consider the whole scientific argument rather than components of it when evaluating it next to the counterargument.
Other restrictions are imposed in our society surrounding the principle of personal beliefs, especially with political and
social restrictions. In contemporary news, Elon Musk’s SpaceX has had its space programs restricted because of its political conflict in terms of NASA where funding is skewed due to some subjective interpretation. As a person who holds such industry in high esteem, the ripple effects of personal values and beliefs in the world of science and technology can be riveting. Such is also seen in modern innovations in nuclear technology where the standards taken into consideration to be morally permissible are variable and subjective. The basis of science as such transitions to its ability to shift audiences and not just explore the bounds of the universe. Through all this subjectivity and personal value, the natu
re of science itself is not perfectly objective. The basis of science and technology is grounded in the fact that they are universally true but the historical passage of technology can expose us to the real truth: that science and belief are one and the same.
Personally, I feel the revolution in engineering and science within the last decade or so is made possible because of the contention of scientific thought and the ensuing controversy will serve as a platform for the interpretations of future generations. However, everything that we function on, our homes, cars, transport, infrastructure, and many more are a result of the development a
nd conflicted ideations of many historical individuals. It is important to consider the everlasting impacts of what we make and how we build it as it provides a much needed perspective on the way we think. There is only one uncontroversial fact: science will keep growing because of our disputes.
Comments