During the case study we performed in class, I was expecting the physicians’ group to find out a more complete answer than the anthropologists’. The fact that the contrary happened led me to think about what we expect of science nowadays. As members of the general public that are not involved in scientific research every day, we expect science to be able to answer every question without doubt, and get very disturbed when scientific methods do not perform as fully as we expected.
If you ask anyone to oppose science and art, I think there is a very high probability that they will say that science deals in absolute truths whereas art is more subjective; I feel like this leads us to believe that science can answer anything. We forget that just like everything science and the scientific process is a path that you access through logical deductions, and therefore there is not always a exact answer. That is slightly terrifying if you try to think about it: not even science is absolute, it all depends on something, on some observation made by an individual just as fallible as any other.
The scientific method does allow for some consistency and regularity, which is slightly comforting but there is no guarantee that you will follow the right path, the one that will lead you to the answer that makes sense of the links as the case study showed us.