Science Tells Us What Is True but Not What is Right

Question

What bias or prejudice is seen in Science Tells Us What Is True but Not What Is Right by Katharine Hayhoe?

Answer 1

Hi Gina, thanks for posting your question.

It seems like Katharine Hayhoe's essay addresses a bias unique to the scientific community, while also proposing an alternative way of looking at contemporary ethical dilemmas that contains a certain bias of its own. So, I think there are two possible answers to this question.

1.) Throughout her essay, Hayhoe identifies and criticizes the viewpoint commonly held by scientists today called "positivism." Positivism, broadly speaking, is the philosophical view which holds that the only way of truly understanding natural phenomena, the only mode of producing "authentic knowledge" about the world around us, is through the scientific method (proposing a theory, testing it through experiment, making observations, and sharing its results). As Hayhoe explains, while this bias has completely revolutionized our understanding of the world, providing us with a way to better explain natural phenomena using rational principles and models, it still, and will likely never, be able to differentiate between right and wrong. Because of this, positivist scientists will never be able to answer the "big questions" of life: why am I here? why is there a world in the first place, rather than nothing? "Is genetic engineering acceptable?" (Hayhoe).

2.) The second bias I saw was toward the end of Hayhoe's essay, when she offers her own judeo-christian perspective as a way to answer the questions positivism has left untouched. It seems like her view of reality is values-based, that is, she is advocating for an understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, based on the values of faith, hope, and love, which come from the bible. She fully endorses the parts of Christianity that give humanity a meaning to its existence, and a basis for morality.

I hope this helps. Have a great day!

-Aaron W.