The public often forgets that scientists are normal people. We’re forced into one stereotype or another; sometimes cast as the mad genius, sometimes the antisocial research slave, and sometimes, most dangerously, we’re viewed as the objective bringer-of-truth, the ultimate authority on how the universe works. This last stereotype is the most dangerous because we get caught up in the excitement of discovery and in the ascendancy of our fields, and we’re tempted to believe it ourselves. When scientists’ egos are most inflated, that’s when progress is most threatened.
Twice on the first day of classes, I was reminded of how wrong scientific stereotypes can be. Chuck Steidel, who’s teaching Ay 1 this year, makes the point that despite its ancient roots, human astronomy is still in its infancy. We are only beginning to understand the structure and nature of the universe, and the finish line is not even in sight. If our astronomy–the annals of man’s gaze beyond earth–is so young, then by extension, all other sciences must be young too, since they’ve only had occasion to operate terrestrially and not in the unknown places hidden in the heavens.
Science limited by its youth. But it’s also limited because it’s a human endeavor like art or business and thus subject to human particularities and weaknesses. Despite its objectivity in journalistic tableau, what actually goes on in the research community is at times frighteningly imprecise and counter-productive. Marionne Epalle, who teaches E 11 (science writing), gives an example of how more than one group often publishes the same research, but no one realizes because the findings are neither expressed with clarity nor in the same way.
Scientific writing, Marionne further explains, is fundamentally persuasive, not objective. You write a paper to convince your colleagues that your findings are correct, or even more sinisterly, to gain notoriety, job security or grant money. The process of peer-review is similarly tainted, points out Katie Stoy. You wouldn’t want to recommend a paper that would marginalize your own research, or decrease your chances for fame. At least, that’s what your human nature would tell you to do.
You can’t separate science from humanity. Talking heads, Discovery Channel specials and Journal articles may sound imposing and objective, but in the end, it comes down to one human trying to convince another that his explanation of the world is correct. And that’s something everyone can understand.