Mr. Matveev,
In reading your post, I was struck by a few thoughts that have been on my mind lately about science in the modern world. I, too, have my concerns about how science is being used for political and non-scientific motives. Also, I appreciate your post, because TONMO’s science section occasionally needs a good external view. Since much work on cephalopods is on the cytological level, your post could spark a lot of new questions and ideas. That being said, there are a few questions I would like to ask you concerning your recent post.
I agree that I would like to see scientists as a unified front against the problems facing mankind. I also agree that I occasionally see a baffling lack of general knowledge by both students and instructors alike. This may be due to specialization, but isn’t such specialization the result of the progression of science itself? Since time out of mind, scientists have used and built upon the work of their predecessors. Specialization occurs due to the discovery of greater parts to the whole. Are you saying that this is somehow inappropriate or flawed? Or are you stating that the scientific method itself, or that modern science is flawed? In what ways are they flawed?
Can this lack of general knowledge also be attributed to academic laziness? We live in an era where information databases and e-mail are just clicks away from anywhere. Could it not be that the lack of real information exchange so essential to the propagation and survival of science is due to scientists simply not communicating with their peers or publishing in established journals? Could encouraging more scientists to communicate more frequently solve this problem?
Cell theory is just theory, yes, but research using aspects of this theory have led to discoveries in cell physiology from membrane depolarization to the action of cytotoxins (all important in the field of cephalopods). It can also be argued that gravity is just a theory, and yet we observe that it affects our biology on many levels and must be taken into account when dealing with bone growth and muscle development, to name a few examples. Are you saying that cell theory is incorrect, or that we should modify our approach? How would you go about doing this?
In his book The Growth of Biological Thought, Dr. Ernst Mayr argues that while the scientific method is good, it sometimes detracts from the goal of science, which is to answer our questions about the world around us. He also makes the point that many if not all theories have a few scientifically based contrary or alternative hypotheses. In short, theories change, and science cannot view them as dogma. In The Demon-Haunted World, Dr. Carl Sagan states that Hippocrates even told his students to examine all the possible theories, even those that contradicted observations. Such rules are the fundamentals for science are they not? What would you argue has gone wrong with science? Could you explain a bit more?
Thank you for your post. We always appreciate food for thought.
John
