Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Science and its foibles…
People sometimes shudder when they hear the word ‘science’. To them, it means rote memorization: What happens when you add mix these two chemicals together? What happens in Prophase II? What was the name of
That’s why it leads people to say things like “Oh, evolution is just a theory.” And “oh, relativity is just a theory.” Well, yes. That’s the point, and the beauty of science. Things can be proven wrong, and things are always up for testing.
There’s a theory of gravity; I don’t think anyone would say “Gravity is just a theory.” Well, given all the overwhelming evidence for gravity, I think we can say that the existence of gravity is a fact. However, there are even now changes being made to the theory of gravity; modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), dark matter, etc. That doesn’t invalidate what
People have criticized science nuts as being blindly faithful in science, just as some are blindly faithful in religion. The difference is, that if the base assumptions are false in science, nothing can make sense in the world at all, because it is all built on a foundation of facts that we have all been learning innately since birth. In fact, many scientists and sociologists believe that human sentience forms as toddlers test the hypothesis that their own mind is separate from their parents, mainly through a variety of very irritating methods to provoke responses. I believe that every person understands the process of hypothesis->test->conclusion, and for someone to say that this could be wrong would be for them to miss the point.
Let’s say that tomorrow, gravity stopped working. Would that mean that science was wrong? No, not necessarily. Our understandings reflect that things can change in science. New information is always appreciated, even if it is contrary to what we know so far. This new non-gravity world would be used as new information, and a new hypothesis would be reformed, one that took into account the gravity and the non-gravity. To say that the scientific method itself was incorrect would be to say that we were wrong in testing our hypotheses; it would be to say that there is no cause and effect in our universe.
That’s what is impressive about science: its ability to evolve and change, all the while keeping its core principles the same. Why? Because those core principles are impossible to deny: That there is cause and effect in the universe, and that by studying the effects, we can learn the causes. If you can conceive of a universe without cause and effect, please tell me all about it.
The brains of animals crave cause and effect for the same reasons eyeballs crave light, but that doesn't make it real. That doesn't make it a fact. Facts are literary devices.
I seriously am curious as to what you think. Perhaps cause and effect is a construct of our minds, but I think cause and effect works remarkably well.
Now, see, it's not that I don't think cause and effect exists, in a form. But I believe that form--or, more accurately, that spectrum of forms--in which cause and effect does exist, is much more tenuous and uncertain than, as I said, most fully conscious people think it is.
It's easy to point out obvious, undeniable examples of cause and effect in effect. If I were to throw a beer bottle off a skyscraper, that bottle would break. You can say that with almost 100% certainty. But just because there are causes and effects with near-perfect relationships DOES NOT mean that such near-perfect relationships should be assumed to form the fabric of reality. Reality is held together not by a set of CERTAIN relationships, but by a set of relationships of VARYING UNCERTAINTY. That's the way I see it anyway.
I think the beer bottle argument is actually a good analogy. The reason we cannot explain so many complicated things perhaps lies in the fact that when one adds more and more variables to a process, the principle of cause and effect breaks down. I am not as big on rationality as Stu is for two reasons: 1) it doesnt explain everything 2)Rationality is always going to be subjective based on the human that is doing the rationalizing.
<< Home