The Science Misnomer

It has come to my attention on more than one occasion that our world has a curious fallacy when it comes to 'science'. According to a general reading of dictionary.com's definition, science is systematic knowledge, fact. I would propose to you that 'science' is actually just our interpretation of what 'facts' we have managed to gather in any particular field, some more accurate than others.

"Whoa, there! You probably don't believe in evolution, do you? Even with all the evidence!" As a matter of 'fact' I don't see why God couldn't have used evolution as part of His creation process. And I think that we don't actually know as much as we claim. Where's my 'evidence'?

Let me ask you a question: Does considering make it so? Is not the Scientific Method a series of hypotheses, experimenting, and evaluation of gathered data? Has an accepted 'fact' ever proven incorrect upon more research? And how often does that happen when we presume to know more than we actually do?

Case in point. Years ago I got a swine flu vaccine. The next morning, something fritzed and I woke up looking at the library ceiling. With a concussion from my trip to the floor. Since then I have had many visits with many doctors trying to figure out what it is that's not working right to begin trying to figure out how to fix it. Partly due to long-term concussion effects and partly due to a common mistaking of what they expected was a neurological problem (though my doctor would point out here that there is some sort of neurological connection), a fair number of those doctors were neurologists. Now we know it's a blood pressure dropping problem but then they were looking at possible seizure activity or random rare diseases of the nervous system.

I spent five days in the hospital checking for said seizure possibility some time back. In one visit with the neuro doc, he indicated that if all the tests they have run and were running still came back negative, it would mean my health problems were due to the psychological trauma of my past reaching out into the physical realm - psychosomatic. So I asked him two simple questions. One: I've been told that the neurosciences, the brain, is the least understood of all medical sciences, that you guys only understand a small fraction of it, correct? (Yes.) Two: Then how is it that you guys automatically assume that if you can't figure out what is wrong, it must mean it's all in the patient's head? (That thought had clearly never occurred to the good doctor before. He had no answer.)

Lest any of you wonder, what we have discovered is that the sensor in my body that's supposed to regulate blood pressure fails to do so properly. Where normal people can have fluctuations with little to no effect, my body does not compensate as it is supposed to. In people with normal 'fainting' problems, the body drops the person and does something of an automatic reset. It also sends out bad data to the brain as though the body needs to adjust when it really doesn't. Of course, I have never been inclined to be like most people around me so not only do I have an uncommon situation opposite the general health concern, I also have a rare variation of it where my body is too sensitive to blood pressure drops, but it doesn't just do a pass-out reset. It simply can't keep the pressure high enough to function properly. And as blood carries the oxygen and nutrients needed for functioning, the more it drops, the longer it is lowering, the less my brain and muscles are able to work. It's quite exhausting. And it limits much of what I can do until we figure out how to remedy the problem. Sadly, science is only to the point where it knows this happens, but not really why and therefore not what to do about it.

Now please don't get me wrong. I think we should try to learn as much as we can about our world and how things work and why. I just think we need to remember that something labeled as 'Science' does not mean that all things are known, or that all interpretations are fact. And I think that the more we are willing to step back and admit what we don't actually know, the more we will be able to recognize the path that will lead to true learning.