Popular Notions About Science

Most people in the world have some sense about what science is, and what it is not. And many of these ideas may be correct, but some are simply not so. Some people, when discussing science, view it as a religion, a set of dogmatic ideas that one either believes in or does not.  These people believe that one accepts or denies scientific ideas ona personal basis, not on the facts either offered or missing.  this is, unfortunately, a common but misplaced view of science.

Others view science as some miracle cure for any problem we might have on Earth, as a way to explain any certain thing about any possible topic. And, of course, there are skeptics who claim that science is just a bunch of egg-headed garbage, or that it is the only reason by which we can explain our world. Perhaps other ideas are out there as well, but in the U.S., the recent branding of science as either anti-religious or a new religion, or the be-all and end-all of life seems to take front and center in the age-old argument about who we are, how we got here, and what effect we may be having on the world around us.

But is it the job of science to make such decisions?

To some, science is merely gathering information and then coming to a conclusion about what that information means. In a sense, that is somewhat correct. Science does indeed observe and catalogue data which may or may not become part of a theory later on. Unlike religion, with which science is confused by some, science should not and must never formulate a theory and then seek only the data which answers predetermined questions.

For example, in describing our sun, scienctists, then called philosophers, once thought of it as either a luminescent god, a window into the realm of the gods, or a huge ball of burning material, coal, for example. Since ancient times people were curious - just what is that bright object we see daily, and how did it get there?  "What it is" was seen by some to be the same question as that which would be answered by "how did it get there?"

As is often the case, then as in our times, answers were given without much actual exploration of facts and data.  Thus priests atop their towers declared that the sun was a god, and that in order to maintain a good harvest, sacrifices must be offered daily to the Sun God. Many ancient cultured maintained this belief, which was based upon no actual gathering of fact, as absolutely true and equivocal.

When anyone questioned such dogma, they were either sent to be sacrified or banished, or suffered some other unwelcome fate.  Now, those who held such scientifically unfounded beliefs in the Sun God, if they were in a generous mood, might debate any nay-sayers with the simple question - prove that what we say is not true.  Then they might take the stance that since no one could disprove their ideas, truth must and obviously did beong to the priests and their religion. End of story.  We see this same argument today.  Prove that Creatiionism, for example, is wrong, and if you can't then it must be true.

Of course, for many, such as Galileo, such observations as he made often did call into question the most strictly held beliefs of religion. Although it has been argued that Galileo was more in trouble for other writings, his first break-away writings were centered on the idea that the Earth and the Heavens were not quite as simple as some people declared them to be. He and others began to deeply question the accepted norms of what the Universe, as it was "known" in their times, actually was. They were not actually questioning the correctness of religion, or of belief; they were merely pointing out that some things the Church proclaimed as correct might not be so deeply written in stone as was thought. Enter the scientists, the skectics, those who observed nature and came to conclusions that were much different from the dogma of those who held power.

Darwin and others, as another example, found examples of evolution, but were immediately forced to contend with those who claimed that God had created everything and to say otherwise was blasphemy. To think or believe otherwise was incorrect, worthy of punishment, and all such heresies were to be treated as crimes. Even today there are some who proclaim that Darwin burns in Hell because of his discoveries. Such minds will never be convinced by discoveries that go against their strongly held beliefs.  And because they depend so much upon belief in the face of contrary evidence, they immediately assume the those who are more scientifically minded must be doing the same, that to "believe in science" is a heresy contrary to good, old fashioned values and beliefs.  Furthermore, they attribute their own views as being that of the majority, and any minority views are to be condemned.  For them, there is no middle ground for mutual agreement.

Yes, Galileo actually believed in God, worshipped within his beliefs, and upheld many of the things that his Church proclaimed. Just the same, he was a skeptic, one who saw a dividing line between what people should believe because it made sense to him, and things which were merely explained without anything but tradition to back them up. Others quickly were emboldened to do the same.

And today, it still seems odd to many that a scientist can be a person of belief and yet deny the dogmatic, traditionalist, fundamentalist view of how we came to be, why we are here, and what caused all of this wonderful Universe to form.

Obviously, there are also people who use science in a way that seeks to do away with all religion, claiming that because science has shown huge amounts of evidence that evolution, not creation, was the cause of all life, that therefore no God or gods exist. But even they have no possible way of ever proving such postulations that God either does or does not exist. Science can not and, as far as I can see, never will answer some questions we pose. One of those is: Does God, in whatever name or number we wish to define, exist?

As some in these hub pages have asked, what does it mean to exist?  Can one even prove, either empirically, absolutely or emotionally, if we, in fact, exist?  Is there any truth to "I think, therefore I am", or is it something more than this, and is it possibly less simple than we have come to assume?

For some, this is not an easy question to answer. After all, some would say that it takes some form of belief to accept that a scientific theory holds merit. Regardless of the simple fact that a lot of evidence, proof or facts if you will, are needed before any postulation becomes a scientific theory, and always keeping in mind that a scientific theory is not just an educated guess, as it would be deemed in the popular jargon, I imagine it does take some form of belief to say that these bits of evidence, or these gathering of facts, lead to this conclusion. But bear in mind that we in the U.S. execute people with a whole lot less evidence than is used to formulate a scientific theory.

I would further argue that some things we experience in everyday life are also beliefs in one way or another. I believe that if I get into an airplane, for example, I will safely arrive at my destination, even if I know that at times airplanes do crash. I believe that I will go to work in my car and later arrive safely at home, even though many thousands of people die in automobile accidents. If I believed otherwise I would never venture from my house.

In that sense, I would say, I also believe that evidence gathered in order to prove or to create a theory in science is also pretty sound. Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion since the theories concerning electricity, computer programming and the like would not be sound, either. And if we had no scientific theories upon which to build our ideas of using electricity practically, it would have remained a mere parlor trick to amuse us.

Yet, as is often the case, not every aspect of a theory, or the evidence that backs it up, can be immediately or sufficiently proven to all who seek answers. Thus we either take on faith that an electron microscope image of a DNA molecule is what a scientist or technician tells us it is, or we do not. If we believed that the image was really an out-of-focus photo of a clown's balloon caricature, our faith in the facts would rightly be soundly shaken. We would have good reason to doubt. And since we can not see the actual DNA molecule, we must take it on faith that (a) there is such a thing as DNA, and (b) we are looking at evidence of such a molecule.

And in that, we find a subtle but important difference between the notion of having faith in science and in the acceptance of science. I know that 100% of the time if I grab two live wires with sufficient voltage, amperage and wattage, I will electrocute myself. That is simply a fact. Whether I die or not I couldn't say, but the chances are pretty good that I would die.

If I lived solely upon faith, I would be able to grab the wires and believe that this once, just this once, perhaps due to the intervention of some unknown being or power, electricity would neither electrocute me nor cause me to die. In the very human struggle between faith and knowledge, belief in the expectation of an outcome other than which we can show, by example, time and again, without fail, will occur, is the subtle difference.

By examining, for example, the fossils of species which are found in rocks, said rocks have been shown by accepted scientific examination and analysis to be extremely old, we can more or less safely declare that these fossils are of creatures that existed long ago. It would be foolish, within this frame of reference, for example, to say that someone put them there merely to fool us. This latter example states, in a conspiracy theory frame of mind, that every fossil example, found anywhere in the world, was simply the work of some prankster. Someone is out to make us believe something that is simply not true.

To me, it takes a huge amount of faith to believe that scientific evidence is falsified. Such a massive cover-up and conmspiracy would be unimaginable to me. But to some, it seems logical and true, because their beliefs can not be reconciled with contrary evidence, and since their beliefs are 100% correct and trump other evidence, therefore the contrary evidence must somehow be false.

To those who are convinced that evidence and facts are just so much bologna, no amount of talking will change the unimaginable abstract into concrete examples of the accepted. It is simply impossible, as in trying to explain to a person who has no understanding of outer space that stars are both very far away and are, in their own right, huge objects. After all, they appear as tiny little twinkling lights just above our heads. How can they be far away and also huge?

The frame of reference does not exist in the mindset for such a person to make that connection. They could possibly be brought about to understand such an unfathomable concept with time and education, but they would need to be willing to accept a lot of things which, to them, make absolutely no sense at all. And thus, in their own minds, they are correct in holding to their beliefs and the idiot tying to tell them otherwise is simply wrong.

End of story.

In other words, they have a very simplistic, and not very well founded, understanding of, or acceptance of, science. One might as well be speaking a strange language to them. Yes, they could learn the new language, but they remain, for whatever reason, unwilling to do so. And these same people misunderstand and really do think that acceptance of scientific evidence must come from a cult-like belief. They unconsciously remain convinced that because it is inconceivable to me, therefore it must be equally inconceivable to you, and you believe this based solely upon a false faith. And I know this because my faith is superior to yours.

End of story.

Having observed this point of view throughout my life, and not just amongst Fundamentalist Christians, I am left to wonder if such completely opposing ideas can ever be reconciled. To me, science makes perfect sense. I understand that science evolves, grows, changes as new evidence is discovered, and that comforts me, knowing that science will not become written in stone.

Yet there are some who claim that because science does not proclaim absolute truths, is willing to shed an old understanding because a newer and better one is discovered, that this is somehow proof that science is a parlor trick, meant to confuse us. Or, worse still, that science is somehow a tool of the devil.

I completely fail to understand how the other side reaches and clings to its conclusions. I see this idea of absolute truth shown in the idea of, for example, Creationism, where the teachings of the Bible are the sole proof that science is wrong, while Creationism is 100% correct, and all evidence to the contrary is Satanically inspired, put there merely to fool us.

Such ideas foster the unfounded beliefs that we live on a planet that is only several thousand years old, all creatures were created in a few days time, a great flood somehow covered the earth but the enormous volumes of water needed to cause such as thing are no longer with us, and so forth.

I do not mean to mock or belittle, I simply do not know how one could, for example, so completely misunderstand science as to make fun of people who are scientists, technicians, and who work daily with these ideas and theories, which have been proven over and over again to work, much as my example about electricity.

I do not see how one can seriously take one text of writing and proclaim that it has all the answers to every question, and therefore we should never seek any other answers.  Yet that is what I am being told.  One can't be a "real" Christian, for example, without tossing off all contrary understanding.  Is that truly what some people believe and are willing to stake our future on?  If so, then I have to ask again: Why?  Seriously, no mocking intended: Why?

I look forward to reading your take on all this.

With great respect,

Cheers!

Chef Jeff