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

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view