Scientific Truth
Mark, the "Moderate Liberal", wrote a good piece called "The War Against Evolution", trying to understand, as I do with very little success, the anti-science forces at work in the USA today. It's all very trying (the anti-scientism, not Mark's essay).
He and I, who both have degrees in Physics and are therefore part of the "science elite", so we know that in fact there is no "scientific dogma", but he touches on a very important point:
Remember, most of us "elite" think of science as a very different endeavor than, say, the priesthood. After all, scientific theories must be falsifiable and withstand years of observation, experimentation and criticism before any scientist will begin to think of a theory as fact.
But to the lay person, science is no different than any other elite endeavor; a bunch of people in power they don't know get together to determine their version of the truth, then preach it to everyone else.
I do, in fact, think of it — science, that is — as a very different endeavor, perhaps a unique intellectual quest. Laying out my philosophy (and not "mine" so much as what I understand to be "the" philosophy of scientific endeavor, or even the basis of the "scientific method", such as there is one) will take more than these 500 or so words, but Mark offers a very useful starting point.
Set aside for a moment the philosophically fundamental ideas about theories and falsifiability and all that — I do, in my way, reserve the right to disagree with Mark about the details of how science works. Nevertheless….
It's the idea of the "elite" that brings out something I've long thought is a unique characteristic of science, an idea that bolsters its claim to some subset of truth:
Science invites anyone to examine its claims.
Oh, sure, to understand some of the claims may take years of study to achieve, but it's all there, waiting for you. Science does not rely on authority to operate. Agreed, most people (i.e., those not part of the "science elite", indeed, even scientist who don't specialize in some field) get their information about scientific truths from scientific "authorities". But, in my mind, getting information from these "authorities" is a practical short cut, not a dogmatic elite; everything they say is testable, in principle, if you feel the need.
This, I believe, is a defining characteristic of science: it's truths are writ in an open book, inviting all to see, to understand, and to test. No truth in science is ever absolute.
Science thrives on openness and skepticism. In the end, if scientific practice is to survive, it will be this invitation to skepticism, examination, and revision that will win out over external, dogmatic forces that would attempt to coerce scientific truth towards their perferred, non-scientific goals.
In: All, It's Only Rocket Science, Notes to Richard
One Response
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Saturday, 19 March 2005 at 02.11
Permalink
I fixed the pictures, so that post should look better, now.
In principle I agree. I'm less sure about in practice, particularly within the debate between evolutionists and creationists. I theory, evolution based journals should be willing to publish creationist and ID criticisms as long as they pass the basic level of scientific muster. I believe this has happened before, but not often. Of course, most of they're criticisms are non-scientific bunk, but not all; they have been getting more sophisticated and I honestly believe (as I think you do) that the science thrives and improves with such skepticism and criticism.
But you know what, even as I type this I find myself thinking I overstate the case. The better creationist counter-arguments have entered the evolutionist's mindset and forced them to think more carefully through some of their arguments and re-examine the data. I'm thinking of Behe's Irreducible Complexity and similar criticisms. As that link shows, many scientists spent some time thinking about the issue and have developed several counter examples, including debunking Behe's original example.