"Settled" Science

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/10-examples-of-settled-science-that-are-controversial

Scientism lifts its ugly head once again! This article is interesting mostly because it brings up the notion of "settled," which the article vaguely defines as where "evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of one side of the argument."

How does it apply this notion of--shall we say--settlement to specific cases in science? Here are the ten examples:

1. Evolution Unites All of Biology
2. Animal Testing Is Necessary
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Necessary
4. Vaccines Don't Cause Autism
5. Alternative Medicine Is Bunk
6. Large Hadron Collider Won't Destroy Earth
7. Cold Fusion Isn't Real
8. Nuclear Power Is Safe
9. Climate Change Is Largely Manmade
10. GMOs Are Safe

Notice closely: most of these claims are beyond the purview of modern science, namely, beyond the framework of testability and hence "settlement." How do you test the statement "animal testing is necessary"? How do you test "nuclear power is safe"? Obviously, this is a popular article, so it can't get to the nitty gritty of hypotheses, but I think the article does a disservice to those who do appreciate science because it paints a certain picture of science that goes beyond what science itself claims to do, namely, become an ultimate arbiter.

Although science can suggest material to draw upon for ethical reflection, science itself cannot make an ethical statement, unless one sides with Quine in concluding that all philosophy is simply a chapter in the book of natural, pragmatic science (pragmatic in his sense of the word, which I wonder how many "layfolk," even radical secularists, would accept), which is quite different from the positivistic view that many armchair scientists/philosophers of science have today, especially among radical secularists and perhaps overly-zealous Christians of certain Protestant stripes.

My point is this: a notion of settled is fundamentally anti-science as science understands itself today. As Wilfrid Sellars stated, "Science is rational not because it has a foundation, but because it is a self-correcting enterprise which can put any claim in jeopardy, though not all at once" (Science, Perception and Reality 170). Settled means a foundation, but science seems to be understood mostly as what Maritain called perinoetic knowledge, knowledge through substitute-signs that can undergo further refinement, a sort of half-way point between analogical knowledge and knowledge of essences. Science is, as Wilfrid suggested, a coherentist project, a web of inter-formative relations, the individual elements of which could be called into question and changed, but the entire web must remain for the project to continue.

But of course, if one is a Catholic scientist, I think things change slightly...but I won't get into that.