Locke, Morality, and God

Scientific

Explanations

By:

Chris Cochran

Fall 2004, PHI4400

Professor:

Dr. Hawkins

This paper will be a discourse on the pros and cons of scientific explanations, the difference between strict and simple interpretations, and some of their ramifications. I will start off by describing what I mean by a scientific explanation and the differences between the strict and simple interpretations. Then I will give some examples of both the pros and cons of scientific explanations we’ve had over the years. I will finish up with my feelings on the subject and whether or not scientific explanations are a good thing, a bad thing, or a combination of the two.

Scientific explanations are a way for curious people, like scientists, to explain how things work by providing an exact description of the objects they are studying. These explanations are usually very specific knowledge put into the strict form of a chemical or mathematical formula and are very hard to understand by the average person. But, by having and working with specific knowledge about an object of study, scientists can formulate a better educated guess, or hypothesis, about how to further understand and improve upon the object of study.

The quest for knowledge through scientific explanations has produced some amazing outcomes. Take medicine for example. Scientists have defined what the exact chemical properties make up the medicines in use today. Because of this, we can prescribe medication to people and help them get better sooner. Scientists in labs all over the world are doing research and advancing our knowledge of medicine and are trying to find cures for every ailment that humans can be affected by. For example, if someone has a headache, we know that the ingestion of some aspirin will help alleviate the pain and get rid of the headache. If we have any inflammation or swelling, we know that taking Aleve will help suppress the inflammation. These are examples of common drugs that most people are aware of. I use the term common drugs in an effort to dumb it down a bit for most people to relate to what I am talking about. This is one of the down sides to using scientific explanations for things. If I were to use the actual scientific names for aspirin (acetaminophen) and Aleve (Ibuprofen), I might only get through to a small group of people.

Drug companies are not the only people doing research. For example, candy manufacturers like M&M/Mars have scientists researching Theobroma cacao seeds (the chief ingredient used in making chocolate). The Theobroma cacao seed’s chemical make up can be scientifically explained as:

Per 100 g, the seed is reported to contain 456 calories, 3.6 g H2O, 12.0 g protein, 46.3 g fat, 34.7 g total carbohydrate, 8.6 g fiber, 3.4 g ash, 106 mg Ca, 537 mg P, 3.6 mg Fe, 30 mg b-carotene equivalent, 0.17 mg thiamine, 0.14 mg riboflavin, 1.7 mg niacin, and 3 mg ascorbic acid. According to the Wealth of India, the edible pulp of the fruit contains 79.7–88.5% water, 0.5–0.7% albuminoids, astringents, etc.; 8.3–13.1% glucose, 0.4–0.9% sucrose, a trace of starch, 0.2–0.4% non-volatile acids (as tartaric), 0.03% Fe2O3 and 0.4% mineral salts (K, Na, Ca, Mg). The shell contains 11.0% moisture, 3.0% fat, 13.5% protein, 16.5% crude fiber, 9.0% tannins, 6.0% pentosans, 6.5% ash, and 0.75 theobromine. Raw seeds contain 0.24 mg/100 g thiamine, 0.41 riboflavin, 0.09 pyridoxine, 2.1 nicotinamide, and 1.35 pantothenic acid. Etc…[1]

This information that has been ascertained about the Theobroma cacao seed can be used to postulate and test out theories that researchers might have in trying to come up with new uses for the seed, like new types of chocolate candies or different flavors and so on. The chemical explanation also allows researchers to determine exactly what is wrong, or right, with a theory when it is tested. Without this knowledge, new products might take many more years to create, if at all.

Another plus for using scientific explanations for things, is simply, that only certain people will be able to understand what they mean. I’m not saying that we should have an intellectual elite group of people who control our knowledge of things. What I mean is that people who have gone to school and are educated in the ways of science and research are better suited to use this information. Scientific explanations are knowledge, and knowledge is power. This power could be used for the betterment of human kind or the detriment of humankind. For the most part, people who are educated in the use of scientific explanations will use their knowledge for the betterment of humankind.

Of course now, profit is taking precedence over the betterment of humankind. Products are being developed based on what people want to buy more so than the healing or curing properties of a drug that should be researched and developed. For example, drugs like Sildenafil Citrate[2] (more commonly known as Viagra) help a person’s sex life and Xenadrine help a person lose weight without exercise.

Simple terms for scientific explanations need to be put into terms that are “homey and familiar” to the masses, as often is the case with medicine. These simple terms help people to understand and relate to what an object is. But these terms are usually forgotten in place of brand names like Tylenol or Aleve (which is another way of saying aspirin or ibuprofen). Thanks to good marketing campaigns, we now refer to a lot of things, not by their real or common names, but instead by their brand names. For example, if a person wanted a soda, they would most likely ask for a Coke, or a Diet Coke. Or, if a person wanted a tissue to blow their nose, they would probably ask for a Kleenex. Or, they might ask for a Q-tip to swab their ears, or a Band-Aid to mend a wound. These are all just a few examples of how simple explanations for things have been marketed to become known by a product name instead of their scientific or simple name.

This brings us to some of the downsides of scientific explanations. I know I said earlier that for the most part, people who are educated in the use of scientific explanations will use their knowledge for the betterment of humankind. But there are no guarantees that this will always be the case. With knowledge comes power, and with power comes corruption. The inevitable separation between the educated and the masses might cause a power struggle between the two. Not only that, but this separation could possibly allow the educated to experiment and do whatever they wanted to. There would be no one to police their actions except for their peers and other educated people. If I were to say to that I was going to experiment with the drug Trichothecene Mycotoxin[3] to find a cure for cancer, there would be no reason for the masses to disagree with me or try and stop me. It would be left up to the other scientists who knew what the drug was to actually put up a red flag and say something, or at the very least put it in more common and familiar terms to help the people and authorities understand what it was exactly that I was doing. In reality, Trichothecene Mycotoxin is a biological warfare agent. But unless it was put into terms that the masses could understand, it is very unlikely that there would be any resistance to the research until it was too late.

Are scientific explanations a good thing, a bad thing, or a combination of the two? Good question. I think it is imperative that we use a combination of the two. Scientific explanations should be used in education and research and common names should be used for the masses. I do believe that there should be a separation between the scientific community and the masses for the simple reason that people are curious by nature. If went around and used scientific explanations for everything, it would lead to a lot of confusion, but it would also lead to experimentation by those who are not educated in proper research methods. This could potentially be a real disaster waiting to happen. But then again, do we really want a society that is dumbed down into using homey and familiar names for things? No, I don’t think so. At least I hope people would want to be informed and stay on top of things. I don’t really want to live in a society where everything is known simply by their brand name. If that were to happen, then I would no longer be known as a person. I would be known only as a consumer.

Works Cited