Rachel Aparicio
The
In(evitable)fallibility of Science
Automobiles,
airplanes, computers, open heart surgery. These are just a few of the many extraordinary creations and
achievements the human race has concocted from the cauldron of science. For
centuries man has engaged in the practice of scientific inquiry, occasionally yielding
results which are so impactful, they literally change
the course of history and the whole of the human experience. The twentieth
century in particular has seen a massive shift in the way people, particularly
in developed countries, live as a result of technological advances. People of
my generation can barely conceive of a life which does not include the use of
computers, the internet, cable TV or cell phones, much less things like
automobiles, electricity or penicillin. Everything in our world, from the
clothes we wear to the food we eat, has come to us through the workings of
science. Because of this, scientific fact has become elevated in our minds to a
state of not only greatness but infallibility. Backed this claim of infallibility,
scientists and those who fund their research are able to pursue their own
interests and reinforce their own agendas based on the findings science can
provide.
When people argue, when they are in disagreement about
something, they often use scientific facts to support their claim. Statistics
in particular are a popular method of supporting ones point of view.
Unfortunately statistics, like all scientific data, are malleable and often
misleading. The methods of conducting a survey, the who,
what, when, where and how, can drastically alter the representative-ness and thus accuracy of statistical information. One such
example is the way poverty is calculated by the US Census Bureau. According to
Christopher Moraff in his article “Lies,
Damn Lies and Poverty Statistics,” the method currently used by the United
States government in determining poverty is simply to triple the average cost
of feeding a family of three for a year. Created in 1963 by a statistician in the Social Security
Administration, who was using information from a Department of Agriculture
Survey done in 1955, this method
is deemed by many experts to be a completely outdated and unrealistic method of
calculating poverty. Yet it is still used because it drastically underestimates
the number of people living in poverty in the United States, which, of course,
makes the United States government appear in a more positive light. After all,
12.7% of the population living in poverty sounds much better than 25% of the
population. This is just one example of how statistical information can be used
to present a particular version of the truth which benefits those who conducted
or quoted the research.
The easy with
which science can be used and misrepresented by groups in power, men for
example, has significant impacts on the many groups not in power, including
women. From the beginning of civilization up to the present, men of all
disciplines, from Anthropology, to Biology, to Psychology, have been doing
their utmost to scientifically prove the inherent inferiority of females. From
the ancient Greeks to the late 1700's, medical texts which depicted and
described human physiology emphasized the similarities
of the male and female bodies in an attempt to explain the female as an
inferior version of the male. Next came
a study of the skeleton with emphasis on the skull and how the female's smaller
skull was proof of her lesser intellectual capacities (Oudshoorn
6-7). Obviously in the face of current science, all of this supposed evidence
of female inferiority has been categorically debunked. The beat goes on,
however. Pick up any general biology text copyright 2006 and odds are you will
find a description of human reproduction which depicts male sperm as valiant
warriors fighting against all obstacles to finally penetrate a passive female
egg. This is science which reflects and reinforces the social norms and gender
roles of the current culture.
Science is objective, but those who conduct it are not. Scientific
research is always funded, done, analyzed and utilized by people with
individual interests to protect and agendas to pursue. Ultimately, science is a story. It is a
narrative of “facts” told by a particular person or group in a particular place
and time, often for a particular purpose. Does this mean we should not continue
to do scientific experimentation and research? Absolutely
not. What is does mean is that people need to be cautious of the
extremely transitory and political nature of “facts.” It is important to
understand the biases and fallibility of scientific facts as they are presented
to us by those in power, because it is often these very facts which are used to
legitimize unjust power structures and practices such as the subordination of
women to men over the centuries.
Moraff, Christopher. “Lies, Damn Lies and
Poverty Statistics.” 27 February 2006.
22 June 2006. < http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2513/>
Oudshoorn, Nelly. An Introduction to Women's Studies,
2nd ed. Ed. Inderpal
Grewal and Caren Kaplan. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2006. 6-8.