Skip to main content

Science vs. Creed

Thomas Henry Huxley* (1825-1895) maintained that “Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed**.” 

This is not exactly so.   In the definition cited below, a creed is "A system of belief, principles, or opinions."   Sounds like science to me, though we might better say science is "A system of belief, principles, or opinions supported by evidence."  

To do science and mathematics well does in fact require the scientist to believe in the strongest possible way the present tenets of his/her science.  The science is the creed.  The creed provides the guidance and rails upon which the research proceeds.   Without the firm beliefs in place, the research will flip and flop between competing firmaments.  Nothing happens then.  Seldom does any research project begin with the goal, “I want to prove this or that is wrong.”  That comes much later in the venture – long after the scientist has tried everything to support it and cannot find clear evidence to do so.  Then, the “creed” is lost. 

The progress of physics, chemistry, medicine, biology, and every other science has advanced in precisely this way.  Nonetheless, the vast majority of scientists and more so for mathematicians live within the scientific creed (i.e. education) they first learned.  So very, very few are ever at the forefront of a scientific paradigm shift.

So science is one of those rare subjects with “flex-creeds.”  The scientist must be strong in the faith of the theory’s correctness, but willing and able to abandon it when unsupportable. This elevates science above dogma*** but below continual skepticism, both from which nothing positive emerges.

As to dogma, it may be fair to say that “Science is murdered when it is controlled by a dogma.” 
* See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley.  Huxley was regarded as “Darwin’s Bulldog,” for is strong advocacy of the theory of evolution.

**Creed:
  1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.
  2. A system of belief, principles, or opinions.
***Dogma:  a belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without asking questions about them

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Human Simulation is Possible - by Humans

  Human Simulation: Agent-Based Modeling and the Computational Case for Our Reality   1.       Introduction In the essay, we introduce the notion that humanity could be a deliberate simulation based on an extremely simple single-celled organism, hardly anything more complex than that. This will allow an (apparently) new interpretation of the notion that humanity is simulated, but that there is no master engineer at a massive number of dials and switches, responsible for every twist and turn of our universe and lives. We begin with the notion that the universe exists and operates under its own laws. So, given the Earth [2] , when and where life first began, it was infused with a living agent, self-actualized, reproductive, and with other basic rules for its operations, interactions, and much of what single-celled organisms do today. The idea from this occurred some years back when writing code in ActionScript (formerly Flash), I was able to create...

Where is AI (Artificial Intelligence) Going?

  How to view Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Imagine you go to the store to buy a TV, but all they have are 1950s models, black and white, circular screens, picture rolls, and picture imperfect, no remote. You’d say no thanks. Back in the day, they sold wildly. The TV was a must-have for everyone with $250 to spend* (about $3000 today). Compared to where AI is today, this is more or less where TVs were 70 years ago. In only a few decades AI will be advanced beyond comprehension, just like TVs today are from the 50s viewpoint. Just like we could not imagine where the video concept was going back then, we cannot really imagine where AI is going. Buckle up. But it will be spectacular.    *Back then minimum wage was $0.75/hr. Thus, a TV cost more than eight weeks' wages. ------------------------- 

Infinity of Theories

I do love the Stock Markets, all of them.   Why?   Because of the abundance of theories.    Every day, no matter how the market moves there are dozens of pundits offering forth their theory as to why it went down – or up, where it’s going tomorrow or next week, and why it must crash soon or maybe elevate another couple thousand more points.   Ok, this is fine.   But the next day these same folks may expound theories postulating the opposite.   This proves market pundits have no essential understanding of economics as related to the market.   This proves pundits prefer expedience to understanding.   I am constantly besieged by brokerage firms telling me if I would only invest a million, they would help me reach my goals.   If I had this information, how to make a lot of money, I would borrow every cent I could and apply it to making a bunch of money.   I’d not tell a soul. So, why are they trying to help me?   Well, ...