A Few Words on Science and its Critics

When we talk about cognitive accuracy, we mean something fairly specific: we contend that science gives us a way to construct an external or global reference point with a high probability of agreement, both with the external world and among members of a given communication. Sometimes this approach meets with resistance in the form of various arguments about the inadequacy of science. David DiSalvo has posted a cogent and articulate statement that addresses the resistance of the -ists and isms. He notes that we cannot escape our biases, but if we expose them to the light whenever we can, and accept, even embrace, the likelihood of our mistakes, we can reduce their number and severity. Only science takes that approach.

In a nutshell, DiSalvo notes:

Science is one of the best tools we have to reach beyond our limited capacity. It’s not a flawless tool by any means, and it can’t right all the wrongs that beset our brains. But when compared to several other modes of inquiry, it’s one of the best we have.

and:

If supernaturalism or postmodernism were reliable tools for expanding understanding and improving our lot, we’d have every reason to value them as much or more than science—but the truth is, they’re not. In fact, the absolutism endemic to both makes them philosophical cul-de-sacs.