on the roles of science

I've been thinking about how the role of scientific endeavor has morphed since the Scientific Revolution. What it's value has been, and what it has become.

One of our current controversial quests is to take advantage of what opportunity stem cells hold. Is the aspect of reality at stake here as great as that of Copernicus' heliocentric system or Giordano Bruno's infinite universe? Sciences battle with the church exists in the stem cell revolution, but is it as prevalent and restrictive as was the Roman Inquisition? The obvious answer is that no, it is not. Science has an easier time evolving in modern society because our paradigm since the Scientific Revolution has been to encourage the pursuit of knowledge. Since the breakdown and reconfiguration of the Church, theory has become a more friendly phenomenon. Theory then evolves into science much more naturally and with less turbulence. Scientific discovery glides into public gaze with less suspicion.

There are more scientists and, as such, more reason for the public to accept that what the scientific community promulgates. This is something that Thomas Kuhn does not talk about, and I wish he would have. He considers the role of individuals within the scientific community who are more bold than others, and who stimulate acts of revolutionary science. The roles of the other community members, however, are somehow uninteresting to Kuhns concepts.

The role of the scientific community, I think, is to speed up the process of insight. The scientific body gravitates toward one emerging framework or its opponent with the same outcome as the battle of superseding geniuses against the Roman Inquisition. Internal discordance now slows the progress of science instead of the fear of a shift in reality or religious allegiance. It's no less turbid than pre-Revolution, but certainly more urbane... there is no sabotage or torture in modern Science. I actually think that by handing the beast to itself, the Church has simply backed away from the recidivism of the tyrannical father and become the comforting grandmother to those who can't handle theoretical threats posed to reality.

So has it become easier for science to thrive since the Revolution? Yes. Has new knowledge become globally welcome instead of globally feared? To those territories who experienced a Scientific Revolution, yes. Has the quelling of that global fear opened new doors for the free emergence of scientific revolution? Perhaps.

Does revolutionary scientific discovery hold the same earth-shattering importance that it once did? Not really.

Does an individual scientist suggest as much importance to the growth and sustenance of the world as they did during the Renaissance? Well...

I like to hope that we do. But I will need more convincing as my career proceeds.