Kelly C. Smith is a Professor and Chair of the Deparatment of Philosophy and Religion at Clemson University. He received his M.S. in Biology from Duke University in 1992, followed by his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1994. Kelly’s research is wide ranging and includes work on philosophical issues surrounding the search for life on other planets, the concept of “genetic disease,” the relationship between religious faith and scientific reasoning, ethical implications of new technologies, complex systems in developmental and evolutionary biology, and the origins and nature of life.
What is the role of the scientist in society? Why is it important?
First of all, we should say that science is clearly the best way humans have found to discover truths about the natural world and this kind of knowledge is absolutely critical to pretty much everything in the modern world. This is the kind of thing that shouldn’t need to be said at all, but these days it does (trust me – I spent years arguing with creationists). So it’s critical that society in general recognize this fact and respect the judgements of science.That doesn’t mean that there are never grounds to criticize science, of course. Humans in general are pretty bad at rational thinking and scientists aren’t an exception to this. Yes, they have been trained in a lot of technical skills they need to do their jobs, but their basic psychology is the same as other humans, which means they are (nearly) as susceptible to irrational ways of thinking as everyone else. Consider, for example, Clarke’s law formulated by scifi write Arthur C Clarke: “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” There’s a lot of truth in that, which just shows that scientists are human like everyone else.
What people need to appreciate is that when a scientist makes a claim that reflects scientific consensus, she is not merely speaking for herself. Instead, she is acting as spokesperson for a huge community of experts who have invested huge amounts of time and money, not just studying what is known, but doing experiments to carefully tease out answers we don’t know. That doesn’t mean they are always right, of course, but it does mean that it’s more likely (often much more likely) that they are right about the kinds of things science studies than someone who is ignorant of science.
Non-scientists need to appreciate just how much thought and effort goes into scientific reasoning – in particular, any scientific consensus will have had to survive some of the smartest, best informed people on Earth trying to prove it wrong. On the other hand, though, scientists don’t know everything. It is certainly not uncommon for a scientist to opine with supreme confidence on a matter that is not strictly scientific. For example, a space scientists might write an article about the ethics of terraforming Mars. While she is certainly entitled to express their opinion, and may well be an expert on Mars, she is not an expert on morality. Thus, we all need to keep in mind that her opinion in that case is just that – an opinion like everyone else’s, not one that should be invested with the credibility of science merely because it was expressed by a scientist.
Sign up for the Daily Dose Newsletter and get the morning’s best science news from around the web delivered straight to your inbox? It’s easy like Sunday morning.