THERE is an international tussle between believers and non-believers of science, which could pose setbacks when the latter hold positions to influence decision-making.
The Science Council’s relatable definition says, “Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world, following a systematic methodology based on evidence.”
There is no denying that scientific approaches in understanding events are not always correct. People can readily highlight opinion polls that ran afoul in predicting, meteorologists getting the weather wrong, and so forth.
However, these are insufficient evidence of science’s failure, falling within the element of human error, methodology used, or marginal errors as allowed in data analyses. In spite of inherent and evidential deficiencies in science, its application in guiding decision-making pays dividends. For instance, population censuses, which follow scientific methodology, present frameworks for Government and other stakeholders to plan development, based on demography, interests, needs and so forth. The application reduces haphazard approaches to planning, minimises/eliminates wastage, makes best use of limited resources, and reach the targeted groups.
The people having evolved, thanks to science, no longer view the earth as flat with the danger of falling off should they travel to the end. This evident discovery has enhanced human interaction, travel, trade and development, although all have not been to the mutual benefit of those involved.
Scientific understanding of the universe, including the environment, has not only empowered man to engage in space exploration, but also to improve our air, water and land travels. Research/studies have made once life-threatening diseases curable or treatable, thereby adding value to life and living. Understanding of the human make-up, food choices, and their nutritional values add benefit to the quality of life we can enjoy.
If science is appreciated for aiding better understanding of the world, increasing opportunities and comfort derive from its knowledge; science should not have to fight for its relevancy in forewarning us that the planet is under threat and requires behavioural changes to ensure survival, health and longevity.
To disregard the warning in the presence of unpredictable weather patterns, extinction of animals, and disappearance of the glaciers, flora and fauna is befuddling. The 2016 United Nations’ Climate Change Agreement was not arrived at because world leaders wanted to congregate, agree to modification of developmental approaches, or more developed countries wanting to throw support behind the lesser developed in achieving carbon credits; it came through scientific work done over extended periods, that included capturing environmental trends.
Science is not stupid in forewarning that increasing carbon emissions will disrupt the ecosystem and by extension man’s well-being. At the most basic, since early childhood schooling, the inter-relationship between man and the environment was established.
Man’s dependency on plants for oxygen and plants on man for carbon dioxide formed part of elementary learning, to be built on as science evolves, not discharged in single-minded pursuit of employment and economic opportunities.
For behind such pursuit quality of life depreciates, as in the instance of underground coal-mining where pollution adversely impacts the respiratory, nervous and cardiovascular systems. Though science has found signs of life on other planets, none is found to allow man easy transfer to live.
Disregarding years of work by scientists and accumulated body of knowledge, which withstood intense scrutiny and continue to so do, is deigned to make the world a less habitable place for man’s existence. Science’s evidence is not a hoax, fluke or similar dismissive ascription. It is real and ought to inform and guide decision-making. The UN Climate Agreement remains vital to environmental protection and man’s survival. Data acquired through scientific bodies aided the work of the internationally recognised Environmental Protection Agency which played a vital role in concretising the agreement. The work of such institutions remains critical in guiding other important global decisions and until science proves otherwise, the adage ‘leave well alone’ remains applicable.
