From Tony Cooke, ACT
The bleeding obvious is usually missed in the debate about the sociology of
science
(6 October, p 50).
If science is working properly—and it has a
pretty good track record—the starting point makes little difference to the
final understanding of the underlying real world.
Of course, belief systems of individual scientists will determine the path
that they take to the truth. Beliefs can also blind the scientist to the correct
interpretation of evidence, but persistence and consideration of the evidence
eventually lead all scientists to similar conclusions.
Thus the furious debates of historical science have dissolved in the light of
more science, because science reflects the underlying reality not the social
beliefs of the participants. Is it not truer to say that the development of our
social systems has reflected our science (knowledge) rather than the other way
around?
MacGregor
