Blog #9

This reading depicts the scientific virtues, more notably, how science is guided by the “organized curiosity” approach. Within this domain, curiosity has also been deemed as practice since it is a fundamental attribute in the field that drives to explore undiscovered truths. Dr. Pennock then further delves deeper into this topic by exploring certain practices carried out in the scientific realm; one such example was where he describes the importance of trust. As mentioned in the passage, honesty is a necessity as it allows for scientists to not only survive in the field, but to thrive and expand. I especially found it interesting when Dr. Pennock explored Merton’s norm of universalism, as it invites the idea that truths should be explored via an unbiased lens, in other words, disregarding religion, gender, etc. However, as discussed in prior discussions, there is a very clear distinction between “should it” and “does it.” Following this section, I believe that this is a core factor in science, but as of current times I do not believe that it is maintained; this is evident in current political measures that have disrupted the immigration of scientists from all walks of life. 

            Furthermore, another passage that resonated with me was where the author explores the openness of researchers in communicating their ideas and their research to others, more notably anyone within and outside the scientific community. Although such public grand gestures are something that still continue today (as seen in college research symposiums, healthcare specialty conferences, etc.) I disagree with Dr. Pennock as open scientific communication is necessary to maintain the practice of honesty, however, I strictly do not believe that “scientific evidence is public evidence” (Pennock 5). Although scientists have a duty to report their findings towards the public, I believe that especially in modern times, scientific information must be filtered appropriately in order to translate news to the public. The onslaught of modern controversial findings regarding gene therapy, artificial intelligence, etc., invites an immense amount of public concern, therefore science should be protected to an extent (as determined by appropriate committees).

            The last significant point from this passage was in regards to how science “checks” itself, as nothing is concrete in science. We have established this checking cycle in discussions, especially in regards to publishing false data for scientific journals. Within the scientific community, the importance of publication is to communicate studies to others in the hopes that those replicating such studies further discover something new. However, if “bad science” is published, the scientific community checks this system by replication and reviewing experiments. As a result, this section is significant as it illustrates ways in which scientists maintain the integrity and honesty of science. Furthermore, the uncertainty of science was further explained by the philosopher Pyrrho, who stated that every bit of knowledge also invites questions; in other words, there is no way to prove, only ways to support. This was an especially significant portion of this passage as it relates back to Dr. Pennock’s first chapter where he discusses the intertwined relationship between science and philosophy; the open boundaries invited by philosophy expand the otherwise concrete borders of science.