The thing scientists really don't like to think about is that science, from some vantage points, is on just as "shaky" ground as religion. Religion is a matter of faith, scientists like to say, we deal with facts. With data, tables, and graphs. With equations and models and big books with big words. That's Authority, right, not some shadowy grandfather on a cloud?
But what about the leap of faith we (and by "we" I mean the scientific community) take by assuming the answers are out there to be found? What about our base assumptions that we make just because they allow us to work: that the principles of physics remain constant everywhere in the universe, that one electron is indistinguishable from another, that F=ma always and forever, no matter what? How is that different from assuming there is a god?
The devout see confirmation of their faith every day. Gravity still works. Check. Light still reflects the way it ought. Check. Chemical osmosis appears to still be allowing oxygen into my essential tissues. Check.
Wheras religious people pursue their enlightenment through prayer and devotion, we pursue ours in the labs and in front of the computers. And those completely dedicated to science may say "well, we don't have an explanation for this, but I'm sure there is one out there" just as a creationist might say of carbon-dating the age of the earth to 4.6 billion years.
Those not completely dedicated to science, however, might seek other explanations to stop the gaps; gaps in neuroscience, psychology, and evolution. To my mind (as of this writing, as my mind is a non-Newtonian fluid at present) this is no different from those who don't strictly adhere to one religion, perhaps finding meditation a good substitute for prayer.
The fact of the matter is, we're all searching for a filter to make the world make sense. And though scientists use a lot of logical tools, our base assumptions are grounded on faith, just as everyone else's are.
I think I have contradicted myself from yesterday's post. See previous parenthesis about non-Newtonian fluids. (Solid when you hit them quickly, liquid when you move slowly through them)
Sean, the funniest thing I have ever asked a science professor was "do you have a bottle opener?" as regarded my desire to drink beer in his office. I was met with some surprise.
The funniest scientific question I have ever asked a professor was "what would happen if you had a torus made out of magnet? How does the field go?" because the phrase "torus made out of magnet" is just really, really funny. At least to physics students.
2 comments:
The idea that scientists "take on faith" that their laws will always apply has been addressed by a lot of philosophers of science, and in general is related to Hume's so-called 'problem of induction.' If Scientists are to say anything certain about the world, they have to assume that, because the laws have worked many times over, they will work in the future.
Karl Popper, a well known philosopher of science (and in my opinion a big jerk), used the problem of induction to argue that science can never say that anything is true. You can only ever prove something false. Saying that you've proven the truth of a law would require false inductive logic.
I completely agree with this view of science, but it certainly contradicts both the public view of science and the way most scientists view science. It wasn't until I took classes in the philosophy of science that I was introduced to these complex ideas. Science classes never teach them to you.
If you're interested in reading more about this particular topic, I recommend Popper's Conjectures and Refutations. He's pompus as all get out, but has some very interesting things to say.
Mano Singham's book The Quest For Truth is also a great introduction to this topic. He gives a very good overview of ideas in philosophy of science, and discusses the relationship between science and religion.
you sound like this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5479410612081345878&q=atheism
L,
Sean
Post a Comment