erraticwisdom

Comments

1. There’s not much arguing that the proselytizers of science often invoke it as an immutably superior, fundamental system of inquiry beyond reproach. Well-meaning folks can be heard justifying something with an appeal such as, “Well, science tells us so,” as if science were Science, a person of omniscience. A god, as it were.

   This religion of science carries the same pitfalls as any other faith-based decision structure, e.g. a high threshold of unquestioned loyalty. Invoking the lab coat ignorant of the contents of its pockets is no less lazy than invoking John 3:16.

   I haven’t found a system of thought or intellectual inquiry which couldn’t use a kick in the ass, but there does seem to be something to the scientific method that sets it apart. At its core, where science might not be inherently true, it does appear at least reflexively interested in its consistency. Scientists make a living doubting, scrutinizing, correcting, and learning from the successes and failures of other scientists. It’s competitive, and this competition fuels its progress.

   Still, it would bode well for humanity if scientists made a point, as many do, to acknowledge that the theories they judge and produce are based on available data, and so can only be as good as the sources of that data. I actually hear this quite often. Not more than a couple weeks ago, one of the menagerie of scientists on a Discovery Channel show said, essentially, “We don’t actually know what ‘dark matter’ is. Many people think it’s just a mathematical ambiguity, a part of an equation that is kind of unknown.’”

   Part of the issue here, too, is that there is a perceived segregation between science and everything else. If it’s a fastidiousness of internal consistency and competitive hypothesis checking that marks science’s greatest strengths, then, by extension, most of human inquiry shares similar strengths. We each use this sort of method, i.e. forming a hypothesis, collecting data, checking the results, and revising and refining the hypothesis, on a daily basis. Web designers do it when they’re trying to fix browser incompatibilities; parents do it when they’re trying to figure out their teenagers; and, just the same, professional scientists do it when working in their fields of inquiry.

   If, as I think, “science” is merely a particularly directed subset, rather than the owner, of the ways we employ the “scientific method”, sharing that relationship with parenting and web design, then that speaks to something larger, more fundamental. The only thing I can think to call it is “philosophy”. And the only good philosophy is a philosophy willing to vet itself and improve itself.

   As to truth, well, there are analogies to the orbits of electrons (in currently useful theories): they exists as probabilistic smears, rather than discrete particles in nice circular orbits. You don’t necessarily, and probably can’t, know where it is. The best you can hope for is to be close most of the time. Such is our search for truth: it seems likely that the best we can hope for is to get closer to it, and possibly never see it fully.

   Daniel Black

   Sep 19, 07:11 PM #

2. Thank you for your fantastic comment Daniel. Your analogy in the 2nd paragraph is just perfect.

   I’m really enjoying the demarcation problem and am going to try to write more about it. I agree that there does seem to be something special about science, but it is awefully difficult to get a finger on it. Most of the demarcation criteria that do manage to point out what’s special end up with no method for theory acceptance. In a space with infinite possible theories, falsifying some means we still have infinity – x possibilities.

   Thame

   Sep 20, 09:29 PM #

3. One thing that I think science has, that religion doesn’t have, is the willingness to have itself proved wrong, to be documented and corrected, and changed to fit new variables. I remember hearing and reading about theories that have been changed, altered and even proven wrong due to new findings. Most of the scientists that I have read about and studied have been willing to disseminate new as well as old data to see if there are any new questions or answers to their subject of interest.

   Science, for the most part (and from what I can tell), is an attempt to document everythin we encounter in order to better understand it. If something is seemed to have been proved wrong, they have a set of instructions they go by to see if they can reproduce a theory.

   Of course, there are a lot of people I know who seem to use theory and fact interchangeably when it comes to talking about science, and I believe that it is one of many causes of misunderstanding/misinterpretation. To my knowledge, a theory is based on facts but it in itself may not necessarily be fact; it leaves room to be proven wrong and/or otherwise changed.

   As for religion, the changes I see in it seem to just spawn splinter factions which will constantly argue their own point without regard of others. This may not be true for all religious views, but it is what I have perceived.

   One commonality I have seen in both is that they each have their versions of what truth is. Isn’t truth subjective to one’s perspective? That, however, is a topic all of it’s own, and I shall not delve into at this time.

   Tom Martin

   Sep 22, 12:23 AM #

4. Thame:

   Yes, I’m finding some very interesting digestion of the demarcation problem. I need to braindump and sort a lot of it, but much of any kind of thought seems to be an exercise in demarcation of a set of things into subsets per their properties, further discover of more granular properties, revised demarcation, and, possibly, transformation or mapping (as in matrix algebra) from one set to another. I don’t have the language yet, but it’s fascinating to ponder.

   Tom:
   I think it’s important for anyone considering the differences between science and other intellectual endeavors, and the abuse of “theory” and “fact”, to find the definitions of those terms. Facts are, by definition, much weaker than theories, or even hypotheses.

   Daniel Black

   Sep 23, 03:32 PM #

5. “He says that it is by mere historical accident that science grew in an environment without predators and it should be subjected to some competition.”

   Untrue. As soon as science seemed to threaten the religious establishment (which grew in an environment without predators), science grew a huge predator overnight and it looks like we might be seeing the apex of that tug of war. (Getting ugly, too.)

   Science is suffering from the same problem religion has always had, methinks: Politicization. Scientists now find themselves in a brave new world wherein they must ‘prove’ things – produce statistics that say unequivocally that humans alone are the cause of global warming, for example. It’s an uncomfortable position for science, because science has never and should never be required to work like that.

   “As for religion, the changes I see in it seem to just spawn splinter factions which will constantly argue their own point without regard of others. This may not be true for all religious views, but it is what I have perceived.”

   Keen perception. Not all, but some (orthodox, especially) tend to be rigid and absolute. Religion itself is merely a set of philosophical ideas that have become politicized, imo, though I think faith may be very different (and definitely subjective).

   The primary difference between the ideologies of science and faith (not religion), in my view, is that science asks questions pertaining to physical reality: How, where and when (objective reality/truth). Faith (spiritual seeking, etc.) asks questions pertaining to metaphysical reality: Why, what does it mean, etc. (subjective reality/truth). In this sense (sans any politicization), the two are complementary.

   “I agree that there does seem to be something special about science, but it is awfully difficult to get a finger on it.”

   I agree with Daniel: It’s the methodology – a methodology religion would benefit from employing itself – but the methodology is in peril. Science doesn’t need competition, imo. Competition implies rivalry and there’s quite enough rivalry in the world, methinks.

   What it might need are simply a few more internal checks and balances. Every field has its own ethics and science moves very fast. If all the bases aren’t covered we could find ourselves in an even more precarious position than we are. “Yes. But your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Something to think about.

   Lori

   Oct 1, 09:22 PM #