Blog #4

These two readings were intertwined with one another, as they both not only reinforced the ties between science and philosophy, but also illustrates the direction of science and highlights the question: Is science virtuous? As seen by Franklin’s autobiography, he illustrates his quest towards establishing and maintaining his values, and does so by keeping track of his approach towards a variety of topics and even alters his terminology to mirror that of a self-reflecting scientist; open and receptive towards other opinions and perspectives. This reading was a necessity towards understanding the mechanism behind scientific virtue as it allowed readers to catch a glimpse into the life and personal journey of one of the brightest minds in United States History. This personable story was one that depicted a humbler side towards one’s quest into “enlightenment.” Furthermore, Franklin’s story merged science and philosophy as seen by his emphasis on values including integrity and honesty, while maintaining the critical approach of empirical science as seen in his letters regarding his electricity experiment.

This portion of the reading closely aligned with that of “Chapter Two: A Kind of Utter Honesty,” as this particular passage revealed the journey towards bettering science as a field. Specifically, I appreciated that the author highlighted the realistic perspective as scientists commonly struggle to balance between the overtly pessimistic approach versus one that is too idealistic. Realism is the best lens to view science as it encourages progress by inviting a focused objective. Within this approach, the author further delves into scientific virtues; one of the most important that I gleaned from this reading is being reflective. On a similar note, two other important virtues mentioned were integrity and honesty; the latter of which resonated something inside me. Although these are all ideal virtues, it is important to highlight the point that although they are ideal values, this does not necessarily mean that they are followed in real life. Furthermore, how do we as individuals in science turn this around? How do we make science “good” again? Or is it a lost cause?

All too often, I have personally witnessed the arrogant nature of scientists approaching the research they have conducted throughout their careers; although arrogance in research is vital towards maintaining perseverance, I strongly believed that it must be controlled. This arrogance and approaching topics in a “black and white” view often clouds the mind from the openness that self-reflection brings. As scientists, we often see science as a flawless field filled with endless opportunities. However, as both the Franklin reading and this passage from Pennock’s book suggest, one must remain critical because there is always room for improvement: ranging from the overall scientific community to the individual scientist in the lab.