Philosophy of Science
Aaron Davidson
As humans we are born into this
world without any preexisting knowledge about our universe. In order to
cope and survive, we must make observations and draw conclusions from
them. Without making observations and generalizations we cannot make sense
of our surroundings. From birth, formulating a belief system is essential
to our survival, and perhaps even to our consciousness. Although all that
exists for the individual is one’s subjective experiences, an
external objective reality must be assumed in order to function on a level
beyond your average garden vegetable.
Obviously there is an infinite
set of beliefs one can believe in, but most would be nearly as useless as
having no belief system at all. As belief systems grow in complexity,
beyond simple common sense generalizations, these systems attempt to also
explain and understand. Belief systems can be classified into two basic
flavors: science and religion.
What are the distinctions between a science and a religion? At first
glance one might be inclined to state that a science is a system where
beliefs are derived from objective methodologies and that a religion is a
system of beliefs based on faith. However, a conscious entity practicing
science can only draw on its subjective experiences to form beliefs. This
means that no matter how objective science appears to be, there are
generally two assumptions which musty be taken entirely on faith.
1) There exists an external
objective reality
2) There exists
some sort of uniformity through time
a) the universe has structure
b) predictions and generalizations are possible.
Even though these assumptions
exist in science it should be noted that as stated before, there is no way
around them if we are to attempt to function without difficulty in this
universe. Marvin Minsky (1985) has an interesting view of this problem.
The limits to human knowledge are created when the questions being asked
are circular. For example, asking what caused the universe is asking what
causes a cause. This circularity indicates that the question is
unanswerable by its very nature.
Other than those assumptions which are absolutely necessary, science
rejects assumptions of faith. Science is a belief system which aims to
minimize faith. Religion, on the other hand, is a belief system
based completely on faith. This is a satisfactory distinction, but I feel
we can make the difference much clearer.
•
One of the greatest features of
science is that it works as an algorithmic process of belief
revision. No scientific belief being held can be said to be absolutely
true, no matter how convincing it is. This is how science compensates for
the small amount of faith it requires. All scientific beliefs are wrapped
in a protective condition: A scientific belief can only be true if the
basic assumptions of science are true, and absolute certainty cannot be
obtained due to the problems inherited from subjectivity. All scientific
statements have a built in emergency exit! Beliefs are able to change in
light of new evidence or ideas.
Religion in this regard, is a polar opposite. Beliefs are dictated and
taken on faith. Belief revision is not encouraged. Indeed, religion has
difficulty changing its dogma when pressured. Take for example,
Christianity’s recent struggles to keep up with the rapidly changing
times. Changes in the Christian belief system have had to been made with
regards to the equality of women, homosexuality, and other social changes
in our modern cultures. Belief systems which are based around faith change
painfully and slowly.
•
Another potential distinction to
make between science and religion is explanatory power. Both
science and religion attempt to explain things. Religion, however, has
less explanatory power than science does. Religions typically explain
things by inventing a supernatural entity as the cause, which explains
nothing since the supernatural entities require an even more complicated
explanation of their own existence. Science, on the other hand often
breaks problems up into sub problems, which are easier to explain (a
process known as reduction) and explanations are only accepted when there
is evidence to support them, and that the explanations are explainable
themselves.
When suggesting that
science has more explanatory power over a religion, one must be careful.
Science may often seem to be ‘making up’ new entities and
constructs in order to explain things. If an entity such as an electron,
which is not directly observable, is hypothesized to explain some
occurrence, how does it have more explanatory power than hypothesizing
supernatural beings such as little invisible demons? There are several
reasons why an electron would be chosen over an invisible demon.
“An entity which is neither
observable nor fulfills any explanatory function can have no interest for
us.”
— A.J. Ayer
Historically religion has
explained the things that science could not. We are all familiar with
religious concepts such as the soul which ‘explain’
consciousness, and creationism which ‘explains’ the beginning of
time and the origin of the earth and life.
Typically, religion avoids the
‘hard’ sciences where verification of theories is easier and
proof is evident in technologies developed from scientific theories. No
church questions the periodic table of the elements, or the theories
behind how a jumbo jet stays in the air. But when it comes to scientific
theories which attempt to explain occurrences such as the human mind, or
events of the distant past — inherently difficult to observe
phenomena, religion and science butt heads.
The theory of evolution by
natural selection is a wonderful example of how science is able to combat
teleological explanations of the origin of natural complexity. It can
explain how we can have the diversity of complex life forms we see today
in terms of existing scientific beliefs. Religious accounts of creation
may explain how the earth and life began, but this always relies on
creating some new entity whose existence remains unexplained.
To showcase the explanatory power
of science, I will give a scientific explanation of religion My
explanation will focus around the concept of a meme, an idea proposed by
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins. Memes are analogous to genes, but
rather than based on the hereditary chemical structures of DNA in cells, a
meme is an idea which propagates from mind to mind. To quote Dawkins
himself:
Examples of memes
are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or
of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by
leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves
in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in
the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads
about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He
mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it
can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain.
Memes should be regarded as living
structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a
fertile meme in my mind, you literally parasitize my brain, turning it
into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just the way that a virus may
parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn't just a way
of talking -- the meme for, say, 'belief in life after death' is actually
realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous
systems of people all over the world.
The various popular religious memes are highly prevalent in the minds of the human population, and for very good reasons. Memes such as religious faith are very powerful. Faith is the notion of accepting a belief without adequate proof. The faith meme sneakily disables the critical thinking needed to refute it just as HIV disables the immune system — a body’s defense against a virus. The meme is generally introduced into minds starting at a young age, when critical belief systems are still being formed and the mind is particularly vulnerable to faith's attack. Its third advantage is of wide establishment. The faith meme has been around for thousands of years, long before any competitors such as science arrived. Faith is also often psychologically comforting when compared to the often harsh scientific world view.
A basic rule of thumb in science
is that bold predictions are unlikely to come true unless there is some
element of truth behind a theory. One of the most often used arguments for
defending a non-scientific world view is that of prophecies and
coincidences. Whether it is the predictions of Nostradamus or the
prophecies of the Bible, it is often asserted that these bold claims show
that something beyond science’s explanation is going on.
Spiritualists often appeal to our everyday experiences of
‘strange’ coincidences. They say that coincidences occur too
often and are too unlikely to occur simply by chance. Something must be
going on, or that some hidden plan is at work.
This problem easily vanishes
under careful examination. Our brains are incredibly adept at pattern
recognition. We can recognize a person’s face from any angle and we
can identify who that person is. We can recognize a two dimensional
picture of that person, and we can still recognize them if they have aged
or had a face lift. We can read typefaces in thousands of different fonts,
and handwriting of all sorts. We draw analogies between thoughts and ideas
which have similar features we can recognize.
For example, I recall my father
excitedly telling me about a coincidence which he had encountered. A
business which had caused him great suffering was being shut down by the
government on his birthday. This seemed for him, to demonstrate karma in
action, and indeed it does seem like a strange coincidence. Doing the math
however, tells a different story. The chances of the business being shut
down on the same day as his birthday is roughly 1 in 365, which is still
in the realm of general possibility. Since his birthday is the last day in
September and it is more likely by human conventions a business would be
shut down on the last day of a month, this brings the probability of it
happening closer to 1 in 12.
Imagine how many thousands, or perhaps
even millions of distinct events happen in your life each and every day.
The vast majority of these events will have little interest and go
unnoticed. The moment an event occurs with some sort of recognizable, but
unordinary pattern to it, your brain brings it to your attention as
something special. It is inevitable that two unrelated events will
coincide with some sort of interesting ‘sameness’ to them. The
moment this happens, we take notice.
As is the case with coincidence, is
the case with prophecies and predictions. The vast majority of predictions
never turn out to be true, but despite this they are ignored. On the rare
occasion that a psychic prediction comes true, they are celebrated as
positive instances and confirmation of psychic abilities. Non-scientific
belief models are not held accountable for their failures, only their
successes. Often, non-scientific belief models must be defended to absurd
lengths:
...ESP often
seems to manifest itself outside of the laboratory, but when brought into
the laboratory, it vanishes mysteriously. The standard scientific
explanation for this is that ESP is a nonreal phenomenon which cannot
stand up to rigorous scrutiny. ...believers in ESP have a peculiar way of
fighting back, however. They say, “No, ESP is real; it simply goes
away when one tries to observe it scientifically—it is contrary to
the nature of a scientific worldview.” This is an amazingly brazen
technique, which we might call “kicking the problem upstairs”.
What that means is, instead of questioning the matter at hand, you call
into doubt theories belonging to a higher level of credibility.
(Hofstadter 1979)
•
I have demonstrated that a
scientific belief system is differentiable from a religious one because it
minimizes faith, has a greater explanatory power, and is open to belief
revision. It seems strange to me that people are still attempting to unify
science and religion. These two types of belief systems are entirely
incompatible. Someone holding both religious and scientific beliefs cannot
be thinking scientifically, as it is inconsistent (However, someone
thinking religiously may hold scientific beliefs without conflict).
Despite all the measures science
takes to seek the truth and explain the universe, it is still easy to
skeptical of its claims. However, it is far easier to be skeptical of
religious claims. Since no better alternative belief systems exist for
explaining the universe, the choice between those we have is easy.
Hofstadter, D.R. 1979. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Vintage Books
Dawkins, R. 1976 The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press
Minksy, Marvin. 1985. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon & Shuster