June 19, 2005
The Gears Of Knowledge Turn Strangely
What makes science so confusing for so many people is that we usually only get to see the ad copy for it’s marvellous abilities, but rarely have the chance to read the fine print.
The fine print of science is that you can’t prove anything for sure, but you can prove what’s not the case. Not only that, but in many ways, it’s more important. For ages, observers of the natural world looked for correlations between things. What modern science contributes to things, in part, is an understanding of the difference between correlation and causation.
Old habits die hard, though, and much of our understanding of the world is still filtered through pre-scientific paradigms. We still think common sense is fit to describe the world we live in.
No longer. Population, science, and technology have conspired to give us a world that obeys laws of nature that we are not conditioned by evolution to understand intuitively. In short, we can no longer acquire wisdom about the world around us by pure experience. Experience must fuse with what certain folks call "book learning", if we are to make wise choices in this new world.
The main thing to understand is that science is as much about eliminating possible causes and relationships for things as it is about thinking them up. It's about looking for the signs that one thing is true rather than another. The unseen order of this world is deep and complex in ways that even now we have yet to fully comprehend. We cannot trust every claim that a person makes, without looking closely at the authority the claim presents itself on. With matters of esoteric research, we are forced by a lack of training to leave it to the experts, but we can research the political claims and review the commentary of the folks who know their stuff.
To deal with science on your own terms, you must become a scientist of sorts yourself. It means you must reserve judgment until things truly fit. It means you must set aside stubbornly held expectations for possibilities and probabilities. It means you must respect the facts and the research first, and figure out how you feel about it later. Too often, people dealing with science will disregard solid theories and knowledge because it conflicts with closely held beliefs. They get in their own way, and let the surface of the scientific discoveries peturb them away from a proper analysis of what's before them.
There are some who will reject Darwin because it's gotten conflated with amoral, ruthlessly competitive lifestyles. Never mind that nice creatures as well as nasty are products of evolution, and that altruism and love are not out of the question as products of evolution. The social picture of Darwinism, these folks would argue, is what matter most.
This thinking is unfortunate, for the fact is, nature long operated with no reference to what we think about it, and will operate long after humanity is dead and has ceased to care about what nature encourages or discourages in her creatures. It does not prove or disprove God, does not prove or disprove free market economics, does not justify or condemn the anarchy or tyranny we commit in the name of a phenomenon of nature that really only deals with what works and what doesn't in different environments.
The laws of nature create the world around us, in its ugliness and its beauty, its viciousness and its docility, in ways we understand and ways that defy common sense. The most exhausting and exhaustive pursuit of science is running down the clues and the mysteries that the working theories create by implication. We can judge the quality of a theory by how much of its principles we can knock down. Science is a discipline that tests, that forces confrontations between what we expect and what is.
The mistake often made with science is to pursue it purely along the lines of what it has proven. Fact is, what is proven is only the beginning. The question that remains afterwards is "What does this mean?" and it is this question that drives science ever onwards. It is not a question of philosophical or social meaning, but that of the implications of that fact in itself.
The old paradigm was that only the things that agreed with the conventional wisdom were meaningful. All else was simply deviation, darkness, chaos, or the intervention of forces beyond nature. The paradigm now? There is meaning inherent in much of nature that we can see to understand if we keep our minds, our eyes, and our hearts open. The world is no place of sterile order or screaming chaos, but is instead alive with surprising complexity and vibrance. The mysteries are not gone, they have only grown deeper and more exotic. The possibilities for how men and women can conduct their lives have not shrunk, but grown exponentially. Our future is neither bleak nor bright alone, but full of more destinies of different kinds than we can ever fathom.I would say there's even room for God, if we are willing to consider a God whose power, ancientness, and complexity of thought far outstrip anything we can imagine.
Before this picture of the world, though, we are not masters. We are barely even apprentices. Humility before the vast ocean of knowledge and wisdom is what our modern day calls for. We have been roused from the dream of easy simplicity, and now work at our new tasks by the sweat of our brow. It will never be easy to do things right, but if we take the right attitude, we can live happier, more productive lives.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 19, 2005 09:07 PMPeople don’t want your definition of science. They want their traditions. In most any scientific discovery I can think of, a majority of the people initially fought the idea. The realization that science brings can often be disruptive to the routine of life many people cling to. As interesting an article as this is, Stepehn, I think you’re asking for a degree of open-mindedness that will not ever be achieved by society in general.
By the way… what does this have to do with politics :)?
Posted by: Zeek at June 20, 2005 12:04 AMAs with most anything, including science, you have to be humble, keep an open mind, use your imagination, and remember your ABCs:
Science has a lot to do with politics. Scientist say that ANWAR has oil….quite a political issue right now. Scientist also came up with the “morning after” pill. Some folks think of this as nothing more than abortion…another very hot-button political issue. Public education teaches evolution…that’s been a topic we still can’t lay down and politicians often point to it, especially during an election year, as how morally degrading our education system is.
Yeah, I can see this is a political post. If the religious right get hold of it you’ll see just how political and heated the discussions will become.
Science, religion, and politics….they pull simultaneously in three different directions. Science is about theory and facts, religion is about life and love and salvation, politics is about money and power. Like I said, three different directions.
Posted by: Tom L at June 20, 2005 01:11 AMTom L-
I don’t dispute that science has a lot to do with politics. It’s shortsighted, though to see science only in terms of people’s emotional response to it.
ANWAR does have oil. It’s a fact. A certain concentration of hormones will prevent a embryo from implanting, and that’s a fact . Evolution as a theory continues to be culturally controversial, but it also continues to be confirmed by the scientific evidence out there.
The question is what we do. With ANWR, it remains a question of how much Wilderness we will permanently spoil for an energy boon that will be temporary at best. With the Morning After pill, it will be a question of what your beliefs on contraception and abortion are. With Evolution, it will be a question of how you respond to a theory that challenges the notion of man as being distinct from nature.
Science ultimately takes a special position in things because it deals with the world that politics deals with, and challenges the more literal interpretations of origins that religion poses. Some people will never be comfortable with that.
However disputable you claim a scientist’s objectivity is, we must still deal with the reality of what they confront in nature. If we fail to deal with that, all our hot air and pious observations avails us nothing.
d.a.n.-
Would you mind linking to things like that next time?
I would advance the opinion that much of the exchange of the points and counterpoints in either verbal or written discussions (such as this forum) are expressions of a science. The Science of Human Behavior.
“The fine print of science is that you can’t prove anything for sure, but you can prove what’s not the case.”
This quote which is the first sentence of the second paragraph in the initial article IMO should be (and while often is, is not always) the case of poster’s dialogue.
Interpreted literally, an argument can include proof of error or improbablity but, the reverse argument would have to be accepted as possible.
SCIENCE determines what we CAN do…
…MORALITY determines what we SHOULD do…
…then we rely on POLITICS to determine what we WILL do.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 20, 2005 11:02 AMWhere’s the science in “Political Science”?
Should that be a required course in college?
Perhaps it’s more an Art than Science?
Perhaps the course should be renamed to: “The Art of Being a Parasite” ?
Or, “Parasitic History” ?
If it is a science, perhaps it should be renamed to: “Parasitical Science” ?
___________________________________
NOTE: We should never advocate the denigration of any profession, race, religion, etc. This statement above merely points out that parasites are attracted to certain professions (e.g. law, politics, clergy, media, etc.) more so than other professions (e.g. fire fighter, paramedic, doctor, engineer, construction worker, farmer/rancher, etc.). The reasons are obvious. Some professions simply offer many more opportunities for abuse.
_____________________________________
d.a.n
Think of politics as a sport with no rules other than the law. Politicians choose a team to be on, choose their strategy and team-mates, and then go for the goal. Studying politics is rather like studying various game plays that have been made and why they worked/did not work and what effect they had.
I say this because I don’t really want to think of anything as dirty as politics as a profession -_-
Posted by: Zeek at June 20, 2005 01:47 PMWell put Rob.
The purpose of science is to help us understand the world around us. It doesn’t tell us how to behave.
We use a process to do science the right way, and to be able to communicate our findings in a way that they can be verified by others.
This process is a problem-solving method that is applicable to all parts of our lives.
I am able to accept that there are things that I will never understand in my lifetime. Nevertheless, I continue to seek answers. Many people rely on religion when they are unable to come to that acceptance, and even stop searching at an early age.
Conflict often arises when scientific discoveries SEEM to contradict notions that the faith-based folk have used as comforting explanations.
What I can’t stand is when thought and study are rejected by the scientifically immature, and science is demonized for simply reporting our best explanations.
Like when GW says that the jury is still out on evolution, or drags his feet on global warming. The president has a duty to learn the facts and act accordingly. If his actions are based on a cost-benefit analysis, then he needs to accept the political consequences of his rationale and tell the truth, and hide behind his current smokescreen
Posted by: Loren at June 20, 2005 03:14 PMLoren said:
“Conflict often arises when scientific discoveries SEEM to contradict notions that the faith-based folk have used as comforting explanations.”
I agree. I don’t know why many faith based folks have to question science. I’m a Christian and the way I see it is GOD was/is the Ultimate Scientist. He gave us the ability to think and discover a miniscule (sp?) of some of his abilities, although His abilities for the most part are above our reason.
Posted by: Tom at June 20, 2005 04:24 PMDefinitely, Tom.
I approach this entire argument from an unusual perspective. I was raised strict Southern Baptist, and now I teach Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science and Physics in a NYC public school.
I took a course at Hunter College a couple of years ago called Science and Society, and it really opened my eyes to the history of scientific thought. The Enlightment occured when academics were able to convince the church that science was the way that humans could understand God’s laws and where we fit in, in much the way that artists were able to paint as long as they used religeous themes.
In my opinion there is no conflict between religeous writings and the findings of science. The Old Testament was never intended to be the entire story or the only story, only the story of a particular group of people, and the narrative was written to be understood by the people of the time it was written. Our perspective of the universe has evolved, and our understanding of religeous texts should too.
Posted by: Loren at June 20, 2005 05:26 PMZeek wrote: d.a.n Think of politics as a sport with no rules other than the law. Politicians choose a team to be on, choose their strategy and team-mates, and then go for the goal. Studying politics is rather like studying various game plays that have been made and why they worked/did not work and what effect they had. I say this because I don’t really want to think of anything as dirty as politics as a profession -_-
Zeek,
The law doesn’t apply to them. Remember Dan Rostenkowski? He got convicted for fraud. He was supposed to do 17 months in jail. But, Bill Clinton pardoned him. And Dan still got his multi-million dollar pen$ion.
That’s just one example. There’s many more. For example: Ted Kennedy, Jim Wright, Nixon, Agnew, and the most corrupt Congress I think we’ve ever had.
d.a.n
The law doesn’t apply to them. Remember Dan Rostenkowski? He got convicted for fraud. He was supposed to do 17 months in jail. But, Bill Clinton pardoned him. And Dan still got his multi-million dollar pen$ion.
Ah, but d.a.n, rule-breaking is all a part of the game! Generally there are penalties for rule-breaking, but in some cases they may be avoided (as with presidential pardons). If the law didn’t apply to them, you would see a lot more blatantly corrupt things going on in the Whitehouse than you do today.
Posted by: Zeek at June 21, 2005 11:56 AMI live in this seeming contradiction all of the time. I work in environmental science and am a Christian. Also a moderately liberal Democrat.
So when someone mentions that science contradicts Christian theology, I can’t keep my mouth shut.
First, I don’t trust the bible as we know it. Sure, the original books were written by people inspired by God, according to faith. But since then it has been rewritten, edited, and had parts added/deleted for political and economic gain. So I therefore have to rely on my own faith and personal interpretation of things.
In doing so, I have no problem accepting that what is going on in the universe is the result of a divine hand. After all, would God create a world where he had to micromanage everything, or would he (ok; or she) create a system that took care of itself? If God was making drastic changes at every turn, how would we recognize an actual miracle?
Instead, I choose to look at the whole design as a miracle.
Ask yourself this question: What is beyond the universe? For example, if the “big bang” theory, which has been used to prove the nonexistence of God, is true, then what existed besides this concentrated mass of matter/antimatter when it was all compressed? If you ask me, the big bang theory is more evidence of a divine hand than not.
One other thing. For those of you who think that politics is science; it’s not. Perhaps the study of people in the practice of politics is some sort of social science, but politics is by no means, no way, no how, any type of science.
Science is the empirical study of something which then generates certain results which become theories. How anyone can fit politics into that definition is beyond me.
Oh yeah; that leads me to my last point: If we think that we know a lot, just remember that it wasn’t so long ago that the world was flat, that anyone going into space would immediately die from radiation, that disease was the result of bad humors in the blood, that drinking Coke with aspirin would make you high, and that the Earth was the center of the universe. Anytime that we just KNOW something to be certain, we usually find that we are wrong. (Ok, maybe the Coke and aspirin thing was a bad example.) Maybe tomorrow we’ll find out that gravity doesn’t work like we think it does, that we CAN create more energy than we start with, and that there IS such a thing as E.T. Oh yeah, and smoking bananas does get you high. (it’s keeping them lit that is the problem)
Posted by: Cole at June 21, 2005 06:28 PMNice post Cole!!!
I was never able to keep the bananas lit either.
Posted by: Tom at June 21, 2005 08:45 PMCole,
I agree. I’ve always thought it was comical to call politics a science. Not even when I had to take Political Science in college. It’s more about psychology.
Zeek wrote:d.a.n The law doesn’t apply to them. Remember Dan Rostenkowski? He got convicted for fraud. He was supposed to do 17 months in jail. But, Bill Clinton pardoned him. And Dan still got his multi-million dollar pen$ion.Ah, but d.a.n, rule-breaking is all a part of the game! Generally there are penalties for rule-breaking, but in some cases they may be avoided (as with presidential pardons). If the law didn’t apply to them, you would see a lot more blatantly corrupt things going on in the Whitehouse than you do today.
Zeek,
I dunno. But I see a lot of blatant corruption already. Just consider pork-barrel, pardons, driving off of bridges, Tom Delay’s antics, tons of illegal behavior but rarely any indictments much less convictions, plundering Social Security, Medicare, Government Pension Benefit Guaranty Group, Savings & Loan bail-out by the tax-payers, Whitewater, Watergate, tax evasion (Agnew), Presidents blatantly lying to Americans (Nixon, Clinton), negligence that allowed 9/11/2001, etc. (there’s much more here: (1), (2), (3)).
I think the standard is pretty damn low, and needs to be raised a lot.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 22, 2005 03:59 PM
