Richard J. Severson

One of the ubiquitous tricks of modern journalism is to interview a scientist for a particular story (the efficacy of the latest diet fad, say), then claim or imply in a logical fait accompli that the story has the weight of “science” behind it.  That, I suppose, will shut up naysayers (and shut down conspiracy buffs) while helping gullible readers make the tacit leap into the realm of indisputable facts, a never-never land where science reigns supreme. 

If only that were true.

In the resplendent history of modern science, nothing rises above the ambitions and achievements of the theoretical physicists.  Is there a more definitive face of science than the elderly Einstein’s wild-haired, twinkle-eyed, benevolent visage? 

And yet is there anything less matter-of-fact (or even comprehensible) than the latest theories of the loftiest physicists?  In what dreamworld would it be possible for the average college graduate to explain the concept of the Multiverse?  Or Supersymmetry, or String Theory, or General Relativity?  Are we finally at the end of adding more bosons and/or anti-matter fermions to the really-really-really definitive Standard Model of particle physics? 

There are many forms of human inquiry that don’t adhere to a strict empirical verification agenda, like the traditional sciences.  What we are discovering, I think, is that even “science” can and does exceed the limits of what is verifiable in the normal course of the ongoing effort to understand the mind-boggling universe we (tentatively) call home. 

I’m not totally convinced that science will be the arbitrator of our biggest questions in life.  I think it would be helpful if we quit invoking the authority of science as if it were the Oracle of Delphi, or some other incontrovertible mindset.