The issue about the flight that disappeared en route to Beijing from Malaysia is now described as a mystery. This is a language that is often associated with religion rather than science and theologians have been the ones who thrive on mysteries. Now, however, scientists seem to be drawing from that well also. Just the other day the Prime Minister of Malaysia held a press conference to put the matter about the flight to rest. During this press conference he pulled a trick out of his hat like the legendary magician called Houdini and declared that scientists have plotted the route of the flight and determined that it ended somewhere in the Indian Ocean. This magic trick only filled the relatives of those who were in the flight with distrust. Since then, the apparent location of the flight has been shifting like the weather. Why can those who are looking for the plane not simply say that they do not know where the flight is, that they are still looking for it and when they see it they would let everyone know?
Scientists, like theologians, often speak about mystery like they know what they are talking about. In fact, some scientists sometimes talk as if mystery is only a term for what we know. However, when an event like this flight incident happens and one sees scientists all over the map, one cannot help but wonder whether they sometimes know what they are talking about. Does not the quest for knowledge need some humility, even if that quest is a scientific one? As one who loves science, it seems to me that scientists should always begin their work by talking about what they know rather than what they do not know. When they do not know something, they should be clear that they do not know. Theology lost its shine in part because it claimed to know more than what was possible to know. Science may go the same way if scientists are seen to be fumbling science.
Scientists, like theologians, often speak about mystery like they know what they are talking about. In fact, some scientists sometimes talk as if mystery is only a term for what we know. However, when an event like this flight incident happens and one sees scientists all over the map, one cannot help but wonder whether they sometimes know what they are talking about. Does not the quest for knowledge need some humility, even if that quest is a scientific one? As one who loves science, it seems to me that scientists should always begin their work by talking about what they know rather than what they do not know. When they do not know something, they should be clear that they do not know. Theology lost its shine in part because it claimed to know more than what was possible to know. Science may go the same way if scientists are seen to be fumbling science.
No comments:
Post a Comment