Good science is humble and knows it can be replaced if it fails.

The year is over and our usual Western Gregorian style resolutions have appeared.

Going back to the distinct memories of the time, I remembered Alexander Mandic Who, in addition to always having a hammer on the table in iG, will stick a series of the most diverse phrases on the wall. He even wrote a pamphlet (Mandka) where these phrases were collected. One of the things I loved most was “everything can”.

The phrase “everything” referred me to a controversial scientist and philosopher, Paul Feyerabend. For him, the only principle that does not prevent progress would be: “It’s all worth it.” Feyerabend takes the concept of “science” in an unorthodox way and positions it as an “ideology” that, like the others, must be led by the tools of democracy.

In a lecture he gave in Vienna in 1975, available in a text with the provocative title “How to Defend Society Against Science”, he thesis revealed that “there are many ways to develop science, which should not be confined to some unique way”. and that “in the same way that the separation of state and church is upheld, the separation of state and science must be sought.” The shocking statement says that there are more important things, both socially and humanly, than wiping out a “scientific fact.”

This discussion, about forms and models, is also being conducted by other important names in the area, such as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. In a simple example, from a non-specialist, Newtonian mechanics continues to perfectly serve everyday life, even if Einstein surpasses it in physics.

Incidentally, the knowledge that established science receives from the traditions of less complex environments is not small and cannot be neglected. How many useful and simple concepts of farming, for example, can you glean from a conversation with those who have historically dealt with the land?

I remember that on a bus ride of a few hours, an aboriginal man sat next to me and shared with me a set of unique knowledge about herbs and remedies, which he had received from his grandmother and which he had kept. That is, concrete results are important, whether they come from established science or also from rich accumulated knowledge, even if it is without scientific accuracy.

Good science is humble and knows its “facts” can be replaced when it fails a test. As Shakespeare said through Hamlet, “There are more mysteries between heaven and earth, Horace, than we can dream of in our vain philosophy.”