Can Science Save Us?

What if the phrase "trust the science" isn't as straightforward as it seems? Join me, Linden Wolfe, on "Here for the Memories" as we explore the intricate relationship between science, technology, and trust. This episode doesn't just challenge the infallibility of scientific knowledge but also delves into the ever-evolving nature of scientific understanding, from historical misconceptions to modern-day technological marvels and dangers.

https://buymeacoffee.com/hereforthememories

Listen Notes: "Podcast Search Engine"
"The Best Podcast Search Engine." With over 200 million episodes, let the podcast rabbit hole begin!

Logos Bible Software
Logos Bible Software is a digital library application. It is designed for electronic Bible study.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Here for the memories thought-provoking audio memoir shorts filled with stories, humor, anecdotes and commentary on social, cultural, business and religious issues. Whatever Lyndon remembers and thinks will entertain, challenge and inform is a possible subject. The collection of memories about one's life allows for the development and refinement of a sense of self, including who one is, how one has changed and what one might be like in the future.

Speaker 2: 0:34

This is Lyndon Wolfe, and welcome to my podcast here for the memories. So glad you stopped by. Good to see you. Hope you're doing well.

Speaker 2: 0:43

Today we're going to talk about science, and when I say science, I lump that together with technology, as they are similar in the way we are impacted by them and view them. Some would even say they are two sides of the same coin. Two points are necessary. First, I am not a scientist. I don't play one on TV, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn last night. The thought of me being a scientist actually makes me giggle.

Speaker 2: 1:11

And this, secondly, is not a conspiracy theory diatribe. This will only be a common-sense. Look at the common phrase trust the science, and as a general rule, I believe we should. But that all depends on what the word trust means. So I'm going to discuss what the word trust in this phrase might suggest.

Speaker 2: 1:33

First, trust can't mean science is always right. To suggest that would be to assert that all scientists agree on everything scientific, and we know that's not the case. Nor can we claim that science has consistently had enough answers to solve human problems or conditions. Even the medical field recognizes this by calling what doctors do a practice, and they sure have practiced a lot on me. I want you to rub a little ponder on this statement. If science was always right, there probably would be no more need for science. In other words, science doesn't know everything. So we actually need science, but we also know. History is littered with cases of science being absolutely certain of a theory or a hypothesis or a formula, only discovered that another scientist found that it was flawed in some way, it could be improved upon or it didn't go far enough. Recently enough, we have learned that masks don't stop COVID transmission dead in its tracks, and a scientist told us that the word trust can't imply that we have complete faith in where science is going to take us.

Speaker 2: 2:50

For example, we are surrounded by technology, and technology is both increasing and enhancing at breakneck speed. It's growing so exponentially fast that nobody can keep up with its progress. If it wasn't the internet that has changed our world and the way we live in it, it's now artificial intelligence or artificial reality. Don't get me wrong, I use those tools. If you think the title of this podcast is good, it's because it was generated by AI. Technology, however, is neither inherently good or inherently evil, but it is fully capable of both.

Speaker 2: 3:31

Let me take you back to one particular invention that was both science and technology, although we know it has been used and is being used for things that benefit humanity and probably the planet. The invention of nuclear fission also created a bomb that leveled two cities, hiroshima and Nagasaki, japan. The death toll was frightening. Lingering effects and collateral damage may have been even worse. The scarring of humanity is probably the most significant. We live in a world now, because of the science and technology, where some deranged dictator could press a button and launch missiles toward another country with a determination to destroy it. From what I've read and seen, this would trigger a series of missiles being launched across the globe, some aiming to intercept missiles and others sent in retaliation or to destroy another people or country. This is terrifying. Yet I believe in the use of nuclear energy for both economic and humanitarian reasons, and I'm astounded at the science and technology that it involves. But my point is science and technology cannot save us in every case. As a matter of fact, it may destroy us.

Speaker 2: 4:48

The transhumanist says science and technology can at least act in a way that is godlike. Transhumanism is the position that human beings can use technology to modify and enhance human cognition and bodily function, expanding abilities and capacities beyond our current biological constraints, including longevity. The title of one article about it nicely encapsulates its core belief. The title no Death and an Enhanced Life via Science and Technology.

Speaker 2: 5:22

But can science remedy the pervasive problems of humanity like poverty, hunger, oppression, wars, crimes and the like? Well, so far it hasn't. Beyond this, how has science addressed the pervasive problems of hopelessness, unhappiness and purposelessness that is felt by the majority of earth dwellers? What about anger, or shame, or mental illness? Our currency says in God we trust. If the word trust there and in trust, the science, are the same, we have a dilemma. The logical conclusion is that science is God and we should put our hope and faith in it.

Speaker 2: 6:02

Merriam-webster, who's pretty good at this stuff, defines trust this way Trust is assured reliance on the character, ability, strength or truth of someone or something. Based on this definition, should we trust science as our savior? The hope for humanity as our savior, the hope for humanity? In my humble but accurate opinion, our trust has to be in something that has a moral compass, a sense of right or wrong, that values human life, that has the best intentions and no element of the worst ones, that is real and not artificial, something that doesn't evolve or craft an incomplete formula, something that is even bigger than science and technology and, in fact, is the creator of it.

Speaker 2: 6:52

I'll let you answer the question for yourself, the question of what humanity most needs. I know what it looks like in my worldview. This is Lyndon Wolfe. You've been part of here for the Memories, glad you joined and stopped by anytime. In the meantime, I encourage you to look back and recall how science has benefited you and also how science and technology has grown and developed over the course of your lifetime. This guy was good, thank you, thank you.