So, what's below was drafted I've no idea when, obviously while I was still attempting to complete my Grad Cert so we'll gauge it around mid to late 2011. I've no idea at all why I didn't post it in the end, likely excessive second-guessing as is my general way, however this is something I strongly believe so here you go, 2 and a half year old post, fly free!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Whilst ploughing through my readings for the new sem, I happened upon the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Whilst ploughing through my readings for the new sem, I happened upon the following:
'Science, and the seeming certainty of scientific knowledge, have undergone vast changes in the past 100 years. After all, before Einstein, most educated people believed that Sir Francis Bacon had accurately and eternally described the basic actions and laws of the physical universe. But Bacon was wrong. Scientific inquiry in the 20th century searchingly explored a variety of physical phenomena, almost always uncovering new relationships, new areas of knowledge, and most importantly, new and expanding areas of ignorance. What modern humanity regarded as certainty of scientific truth has changed fundamentally in the last 100 years, and humanity has every reason to expect similar changes in this century. Science and certainty are not synonymous, despite our tendency to blur the two.' - Philip Patterson & Lee Wilkins in 'Media Ethics: Issues and Cases'
You only have to look at the so often flawed parameters involved in scientific measurement, alongside the potential for inaccuracy in conclusion, whether due to bias or outright human fallibility, to see just how true their words are.
Now, I'm certainly not attempting to claim outright that science provides us with no factual information, far from it. What I contest, along with Messrs. Patterson and Wilkins, is its apparent status to some as the most objective source of fact when in reality history hardly speaks for its steadfastness. Hell, one could argue that by comparison, ethical reasoning has a far more consistent history (and of course, P&W do).
Essentially, there will always be more to the world than what science tells us so we should never allow it to limit our understanding of said world.'
