Said Shahtahmasebi, Ph.D.

Science is a man-made knowledge-based system derived from ongoing observations which are based on theories about our surroundings. Scientific knowledge acknowledges only the observable and replicable phenomena as truth. Any information about the past and the rest of the universe are merely theories and speculation based on partial observations and historical finds. It also excludes human behaviour and politics of science and the scientific world. Furthermore, some observations may receive more attention and thus become the basis to explain a phenomenon. These are then used to further theorise phenomena and to inform policy development.

Policies, in turn, will have an impact on society and individual behaviour. These changes in turn have been used to build in new branches in the science database (knowledge system) as opposed to update it. Science is therefore a human behaviour. There is a Persian proverb that says: a faulty foundation means a leaning wall even if the wall reaches the sky. It is therefore not surprising that for every claim, there has been and will be a counter claim as evidenced in the field of human behaviour. Multiple organ transplants can easily be hailed as how successfully science can inform technological advancement and innovative surgery, but for every successful transplant someone else must die.

Science cannot differentiate this dilemma to a point that some health professionals and ministers continue to recruit donors in order to save lives! Another example may be how science has informed socio-politic drug taking behaviour e.g. despite the evidence of harm, alcohol is promoted as a protective agent against heart disease [1-3]. These two examples provide some clues about a lack of conscience in science because current models assume successful outcomes based on the simplification of dynamic systems to small manageable parts to be observed in isolation.

In my view there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that as a result of applying a soulless science to address human behaviour problems instinctive human characteristics have diminished and attenuated such as the ability to evaluate and make a free choice. In other words, cognitive dissonance theory where individuals’ decisions are based on a valuation and re-evaluation of their choices is becoming less relevant. Don’t get me wrong! Science is fabulous. But, like religion and other systems of belief, it is as good or as bad as the people who leading it.

Ironically, science supposedly encourages open debate and critical assessment of evidence, yet, the inquisition-style response by the scientific community and their followers to expressions of alternative theories is seriously alarming and bring science into disrepute [e.g. the resignation of Professor Michael Reiss]. After all evolution itself is merely a theory albeit derived using the man-made knowledge-based system which holds only partial information. In other words, it only contains what has been observed (assuming correct information) and excludes what has not been and/or cannot be observed [see 4]. Furthermore, it must be re-emphasised that the whole point of science and scientific methodology is supposedly the advancement of knowledge for greater harmony and not suppression and oppression!

 

REFERENCES:

[1] Shahtahmasebi, S. & Berridge, Damon. (2009) “Teenage drinking patterns: A longitudinal analysis.” Int J Adolesc Med & Health 21(3): forthcoming.

[2] Shahtahmasebi, S. & Berridge, Damon. (2005) “Teenage Smoking: A longitudinal analysis.” Int J Adolesc Med & Health, 17(2), pp.137-55.

[3] Shahtahmasebi, S. (2003) “Teenage Smoking: some problems in interpreting the evidence.” Int J Adolesc Med & Health 2003;15(4):307-20.

[4] Shahtahmasebi, S. & Berridge, Damon. (2009) Conceptualising behaviour: a practical guide to data analysis. Nova Sci, New York, forthcoming.