June 24, 2016
The Constant Conundrum
of Science - and Lately for Us All
Most scientists
envision the world where their theories
are taught to all children at the appropriate time in their education. They believe in standardized instruction of their theories. To most, this is the ultimate affirmation of truth; such theories are carried to the next generation increasing their likelihood of survival in the test of time..
At any rate, this seems to be current thinking
among practitioners and researchers in many subjects – that their accepted
theory has reached something of an ultimate maturity – that future changes will
not be revolutionary but at most mildly evolutionary – that we are within only
a few discoveries of the final truth.
Remarkably, it is an artifact of our
modern era for scientists to believe that we have the final and ultimate theory. We are there, they believe, with just a few
more details to fill in.
Indeed, the
entire 18th and 19th centuries were quite a long
celebration of Newtonian physics – the ultimate of what can and what will be. There
comes to pass a closed network of all, all in harmony
and agreement, fully prepared to pass
this on to new students for all time. Unshackling the Newtonian paradigm toward relativity
and the quantum realm did not come easily.
Yet, when a
revolutionary change of paradigm is proposed as now most in evolution biology,
the discoverer is nonplussed about its denial by colleagues (Wilson, 2014).
The new discovery in many ways makes sense, but new theories run up
against “accepted truth.” In some cases, neither can be proved.
Both seems reasonable. The
objections to the old is that has
fundamental flaws in how it makes conclusions or predictions. The new theory
may not exactly be a theory but simply a refutation of the former theory to the
effect that a new theory should be considered. Basically, we have distinguished actor A
contravening the beliefs of distinguished actors B-Z, a tough contest to win.
Practitioners
of science need to hold their science as true, as absolute, and fundamentally
error free. With a consensus of doubt,
there can be no development. This is sort of a religiosity
in basic viewpoint. Who can imagine a
religion with a dominant doubt among basic beliefs?
This has emerged since the success of
the Newtonian model and the decline of
actual religion. In fact, though Sir Isaac Newton himself was
very religious, his theories ushered in
the beginning of the decline in religious belief. The Pew Institute has noted
that believe in “God or a universal spirit” has declined fro 92% to 89% from
2007 to 2014, but that believe in God with absolute certainty has declined from
71% to 63% over the same period. Nearly one-in-ten (9%) now say they don’t
believe in God, up from 5% in 2007.
Mankind has a fundamental need to
hold something as absolutely true.
Without religion, the traditional venue, a substitute must be found.
Most people cannot enjoy the comforts and absolutism of
science because the disciplines are arcane, difficult, and often require years
of study. But the need is there if the
religion is removed (Wade, 2009). A
particular example is anthropogenic caused global warming, a topic so complex
that only a few experts can understand the scope of what it entails, let alone
understand its myriad details. It engenders a close following. There are others.
People seek and even
crave an absolute truth, which has become the new form of religion – something to
believe in that is good and worthwhile.
Scientists have this; the Baptists, Catholics, and Muslims have
this. Many
more do not. We come to accept new
beliefs. Many are social by nature, and
absolute social truths often associated with a twinge of altruism. What
we accept to believe must be good in some sense. We don't believe in Snell’s
law as our absolute, not because it is
not useful or even remarkable, but because it does not make us feel good.
Yet the body of modern (theory of everything) cosmological theory does, partly because
it titillates our needs for a comprehensive absolute and transcends God.
We are good because we
are altruistic. Yet, altruism is not the only explanations that
satisfy. Examples.
- Fight global warming, a topic so complex that only a few experts can understand the scope of what it entails, let alone understand the details.
- Stewardship of the planet, stewardship of animals, of children, of trees, etc. God is the planet, life, or perhaps a portion of it.
- Saving mankind from the demons of racism, phobias, and discrimination, a generational favorite. Each engenders a fervent calling.
- Intelligent design is a “thinking man’s” version of the traditional creation message prominent in western evangelical religions. It is an alternative to the big bang theories, for which substantial evidence is supportive. It is also singular in that neither evidence nor experiments are offered to establish its veracity.
- Altruism is built into current evolution theory. Now the God/religion is the species itself, us. Altruism has two rather distinct forms, the conscious and the genetic.
All these engender notions
of belief at least partly because of their religiosity. It is simplistic to
note these examples are not uniform in their gravitas, but it is important to note, the definition of absolute
is not absolute, that is, uniform among all people.
Scientists and really all
of us inoculate ourselves against new ideas or thoughts in conflict with what we
hold absolute - past present and always.
In times past, the law was used as an
absolute, though scholars of all ages cited the many philosophical flaws with
the law being so regarded. It remained
so for many, as a “secular” absolute, with religion remaining in place. Science
can learn something from the law, allowing both secular and religious truths.
Wade, Nicolas, The
Faith Instinct How
Religion Evolved and Why It Endures,
Penguin, 2009.
Pew Institute, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/04/americans-faith-in-god-may-be-eroding/
Wilson, Edward, The
Meaning of Human Existence, 2014, Liveright, ISBN
0871401002
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.