Your Thoughts Exactly: Science and its foibles…

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

 

Science and its foibles…

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a science ‘fan’. Subjects like biology, medicine, physics, evolution, and technology all fascinate me. And I think I’ve figured out why. Science makes sense. There’s an internal and external consistency within it, there are rules, and there are results. But I feel like the rest of the world doesn’t share my passion for science. So I think I am going to try and convince you of its merits.

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 Darwin’s ship? And I can understand that. There is no real science in these facts. In fact, I would call what most people learn in school is the history of science. Basically, what we know up to this point is what kids are learning in high school and college. There’s a good chance that a good percentage of what we know now is going to be proven false, or at least tweaked.

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 Newton discovered. It just shows us that our understanding isn’t complete, that we can do things a little better. All the evidence for evolution is in; it’s real. But that’s not to say we’ve gotten it 100% right. In fact, there are many holes in our understanding of evolution, which is why it’s sort of opened the door for creationists to say “well, you haven’t explained this, and this. Creationism does.”

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.


Comments:
Hey Stu. Not to be a dick, but I kind of don't believe in cause and effect. It's not that I think the whole idea of cause and effect is bunk--that'd be silly. But I think it's at least partially bunk (much more so than most fully conscious people think), and I certainly don't think it's something to base an existence on. But that's just me.

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.
 
first, is your name landon rabern? I really don't understand what you mean. I do agree that there isn't usually a 100% reliable cause, especially not with the heisenberg uncertainty principle at work. But if you don't believe in cause and effect, then what makes you do anything,

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.
 
No, not a Landon. Your comment, which I might be slightly misquoting, "If you don't believe in cause and effect, why do you do anything?" is pretty silly. That's the same non-sequiteur Christians invariably turn to when trying to logically bludgeon disbelief in God. "If you don't believe in God, why do you do anything?" Or the even better, "If you don't believe in God, why don't you just go kill a bunch of people?" I prefer that one, because it implies that they all have some secret urge to kill a bunch of people, and it's only their belief in God that stops them.

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 actually have to agree with not-Landon with regards to the cause and effect argument, although I think Stu brings up several good points about the falsifiablity of science as leading to a consistent system of reasoning as opposed to say religion. Of course, religion is constantly evolving as well, while maintaining the same core principles; which is what Stu said he finds impressive about science. The difference is there is no built in system of falsifiability; religion responds to the effects of the other parts of society on its masses, in order to keep the flock in line.

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.
 
Oh sure, I totally agree. I said that little "what makes you do anything" to demonstrate that everyone, of course, believes in cause in effect to some degree. But there are definitely some cause-effect relationships, and there are some more probabilistic relationships, like quantum theory. But that doesn't mean that there is no cause to the effect, does it? Doesn't it just mean that there is a cause which we do not understand? Or that we can't yet predict? We'll never get to the point where we can understand all the causes and therefore can predict all the effects (that would be like predetermination, and the uncertainty principle makes that impossible), but there can still be a cause. For example, let's take a roll of the dice. We may not know what caused it to roll a six at that exact moment, but we do know that it was as likely as rolling a 1, and we do know that it was probably a series of minute interactions of your hand muscles and the skin, etc. At the microscopic level, sure, we can't know the cause of that, but a a macro, level, we understand the cause and effect of dice level from a global point of view.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?