Question

Pierre Flourens was a French physiologist who created the first experimental study of the localization of brain functions in order to disprove Gall’s phrenology. Despite his commitment to refute Gall’s inaccurate portrayal of phrenology, Flourens still believed that science was truth by means of to-and-fro swings of theory. He said, “La science n’est pas, elle deviant” (Science is not, it becomes) Therefore, he reasoned, all scientific contributions are useful.

Do you believe all scientific contributions are useful? Could some scientific contributions create more harm than good? Use theories and modern examples to justify your stance.

Answer 1

I agree with Flourens’ reasoning that all scientific contributions are useful. The discipline of science builds itself on knowledge that is accumulated over the years, through systematic observation and testing. Gall’s phrenology approach may appear absurd to us at this day and age because its veracity was extensively tested by other scientists in the field. In an attempt to find the most accurate explanation and description of any phenomenon, it is important that all ideas are put forward and its claims are then investigated. If we were to take the classic example of how the heliocentric model originated, it would be become immediately apparent that the sun being the center of the solar system was not only a heretic claim but also one that seemed to disprove everyday observations. In that sense, ideas that may seem absurd may actually lead to the discovery of some truth, which can only be known after they have been thoroughly examined. This converse also holds true. Newton’s conception of gravitation was regarded as an accepted law of the universe, however, Einstein’s relativity theory proposed an alternative explanation that has now replaced Newton’s original claims.