Science Equals Truth Essay

Some people tend to think that scientists have created a body of knowledge, which is true and sure. After all, some ideas are known with adequate certainty to a level that most people take them just for granted. One of the common examples is where it is assumed that the earth moves around the sun. Indeed, there is substantial evidence, which supports this idea and the evidence is “heliocentric theory of the solar system” (Ramesam, 2014, p. 1). Many people consider this as the truth. However, in reality, no person has watched the solar system and observed the earth as it travels around the sun: it is only a theory, if almost an inevitable one. Therefore, there is no way science can equal the Truth.
In this line, a larger number of scientists will agree that, even if they look for the truth, they actually do not know or create the truth. Certainly, they propose theories and test them, being aware that evidence that will come in the future may bring about revision, refinement, or even dismissal of the current day theories. When a scientist is asked about an issue, which cannot be observed directly, the answer he or she would possibly give will begin with a statement like “our present day understanding is ” or “available evidence shows that..”. (Ramesam, 2014). Following such statements, this is an indication that even the scientists themselves cannot know many things with complete certainty; they can only know observable proof or evidence. Nevertheless, the best possible conclusion can be reached basing on the most current and complete evidence, which is available.
With no doubt, such observations sharply contrast with knowledge claimed by a large number of other people. Most people present claims that the books or book they recommend holds all pertinent knowledge and that the knowledge is unquestionably and absolutely true. For instance, the Bible is normally held up as having all knowledge, and being infallible and literal truth. Indeed, there is no any science book that has been recommended in the manner in which that Bible has been. Moreover, the Bible has been there for many years and its message has remained the same (Hoffman, 2014).
Moreover, challenging science as being equal to truth may involve considering the issue of the origin of the world. When a scientist is asked about how the world begin, the scientist will offer an answer by starting with the evidence of several developments of galaxies among other heavenly bodies, gathered through studies conducted in the course of many centuries. The scientist will end by concluding with a theory that suits the gathered evidence. Precisely, there will not be any statements regarding the absolute truth. On the contrary, other individuals will respond that the world is the creation of a particular deity. In case such people are asked concerning their degree of certainty, they will give a general response that they have completely no certainty. Apparently, no scientist will respond to such a question with such level of certainty, irrespective of the evidence available, and will never lay that type of claim to the truth. Actually, they may have a high degree of confidence in case there is copious evidence, but will not claim complete truth or complete certainty (Geduld, 2012). Undoubtedly, it is important to remember that an individual’s acceptance of being uncertain does not mean he or she is wrong, whether the issue under consideration is in science, religion, economics, or politics. In the real sense, an individual who accepts of being uncertain about particular issues is, in most cases, very close to knowing the truth, or at the minimum, understands the issue in a better way, compared with the person who claims to have absolute certainty.
In conclusion, it is very clear that science can never equal the truth. It is important to note that, a larger number of scientists will agree that, even if they look for the truth, they actually do not know or create the truth. Certainly, they propose theories and test them, being aware that evidence that will come in the future may bring about revision, refinement, or even dismissal of the current day theories. In this sense, the scientists themselves cannot know many things with complete certainty; they can only know observable proof or evidence. Nevertheless, the best possible conclusion can be reached basing on the most current and complete evidence, which is available. Although science has helped in the development of various aspects of the society, especially in regard to technological advancements, it can never be equated to what is termed as the “Truth”. More and more scientific discoveries are made every day, as time goes by. Therefore, basing on such discoveries, it may a point where what can be seen as the truth today may fail to be the truth tomorrow because of new evidence that may come up.

References

Geduld, M. (2012). Why do people tend to equate science with truth or objective fact? Retrieved from, http://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-tend-to-equate-science-with-truth-or-objective-fact
Hoffman, R. (2014). science equal truth? Retrieved from, http://drhoffman.com/article/does-science-equal-truth/
Ramesam, V. (2014). What isn’t science. Retrieved from, http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html