Essays - Science, the Grand Illusion, and Other Neat Stuff

Prologue

Silence hangs over the intellectual battlefield. Arguments, hiding in terror amid the filthy trenches, await the order to charge. Lookouts peer through binoculars at the distant enemy lines, looking for signs of activity after the recent shelling. Some of the arguments are new, some are war-weary veterans, and some are aged and wounded, and would have been sent home a long time ago but for the callous apathy of their superiors.

The call is given. The officer points to his best arguments. Objectivity, science, and logic, get up! Charge! Up and over they go, charging into the teeth of the enemy guns, battle hymns ringing in their heads. Bravely they run, heroically they fight. The officer smiles.

Unfortunately, their names appear to have been chosen in a fit of unfounded optimism, for they promptly trip over themselves. And when they finally regain their footing, they discover to their chagrin that the shelling had less effect on the enemy's defenses than they thought. They find themselves in a killing zone of intellectual machine gun fire and mortar shells. Their remains are soon scattered across the battlefield, and the stench of philosophical blood, entrails, and feces wafts through the air. The officer's smile vanishes.

What Happened?

Objectivity, science, and logic are nice words. Everyone likes to say that he's got them, and the other guy doesn't. But what are they? How do you know that you're not pasting the terms "objectivity," "science", and "logic" onto things which are none of the above? Well, they are just English words, and words have definitions, right? Let's start by looking at what Merriam-Webster has to say:

Definition of objectivity (excluding obsolete medieval definitions or irrelevant definitions relating to test-taking and language syntax):

of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Definition of science (excluding irrelevant definitions):

knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Definition of scientific method (required by previous definition):

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Definition of logic

a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning.

Hmmm ... do you feel enlightened yet? Probably not. The definition of logic is basically worthless, and simply refers to "reasoning" (and if you look up "reasoning", you find yourself being taken to "reason", and then to "rational", and through the rest of a long circular ride which goes nowhere). Perhaps a better way to describe it is to simply say that logic is the means through which you determine all of the ramifications of a premise. It's a way of taking a premise and "holding it up to the light" in order to see where it leads. In and of itself, however, logic tells us nothing. It requires a premise, and the validity of its conclusions is dependent upon the validity of that premise.

The definition of science simply refers to scientific method, and the scientific method is not very thoroughly defined. At least the definition of objectivity is useful. If an argument is objective, it is not based upon subjective factors. If a phenomenon is objective, it exists outside of an individual's thoughts.

So what now? A more thorough explanation of logic is beyond the scope of this document, and I'm really not the best person to do it anyway (I suggest you go look for a philosophy website if you're interested in that subject). However, I can take you through a brief examination and justification of the scientific method. What is it, and why do we praise it? Why do scientists conduct their professional lives by it, and why do engineers trust it?

What makes Science so Great?

Philosophy is an interesting subject (the best debates always took place in philosophy class). However, philosophers can exhibit a tendency to haughtily dismiss practicality in favour of absolutes. A common philosophical rebuttal of science (particular evolutionary science, which faces powerful religious opponents) is that it lacks certainty. It is not proven. There is no guarantee of its truth or falsehood. And guess what: surprise! It's all true.

So why is science great, if it's not certain or proven or guaranteed true? The short answer is that these criticisms are meaningless, because nothing outside the existence of your own thoughts is certain, proven, or guaranteed true. If you wish to use absolute proof, certainty, or guarantees of truth as your litmus test for validity, then you have just subscribed to solipsism: the belief that nothing can be reliably known besides the existence of your own thought. Why? Because nothing can be absolutely proven beyond "I think therefore I am". Nothing is absolutely certain beyond "I think therefore I am". Nothing can be guaranteed true beyond "I think therefore I am". For all you know, nothing exists beyond your own mind, and the entire universe is but a figment of your imagination.

"But that's absurd," you might object, and you would be right. Solipsism strikes virtually any reasonable observer as patently absurd. For most people, solipsism smacks of philosophy gone awry, or perhaps a perverse desire to denigrate every other field of study by declaring all of them to be uncertain supposition in one fell swoop. The salty description of solipsism is "useless smart-assed philosophical bullshit", and to be quite frank, that's a fairly reasonable description. But since solipsism is the inevitable outcome of the demand for absolute proof, certainty, or guarantees, one cannot demand such things without inadvertently sliding into solipsism! This is not a slippery slope; solipsism is the direct result of the decision to accept only that which is absolutely certain, proven, or guaranteed true.

So if we must abandon absolute certainty, proof, and guarantees of truth, what do we have left? The answer is simple practicality: the driving force behind engineering and science. Perhaps sensory observation is not real. However, it is the only information which we have at our disposal, so we might as well use it. Is it real? Is it all a grand illusion? Who cares? The point is that it seems to be quite consistent, ie- the universe described by our sensory observations seems to follow consistent rules. We want to know what those rules are, so we need to employ a systematic, logical method, ie- the scientific method. And for any given phenomenon, we must generate a theory to explain the rules which govern it.

Science is great because it accepts that we cannot have absolute knowledge of truth, so it discards the hopeless quest for absolute truth and it seeks the next best thing: the most accurate possible descriptive model of the observable universe. It discards the useless question of whether the observable universe is real, and seeks only to describe that universe as accurately as possible, with no regard for whether it is real or not.

Common Questions

Question: Given competing theories explaining observed phenomena, how do we know which one is the truth?

Answer: We don't, and we can't. We can only eliminate invalid theories, and figure out which of the remaining theories is the best.

Question: How do we know which theories are invalid?

Answer: Invalid theories are logically inconsistent, they violate fundamental laws, or they have been falsified through testing.

Question: How do we know which theory is the best?

Answer: Once invalid theories have been eliminated, the best theory is the one which has been most thoroughly tested, and which made the most accurate predictions using the least number of terms.

Question: How do we test a theory?

Answer: Generate predictions using that theory. Compare those predictions to observation taken after the predictions are made. Ideally, those observations should be taken under controlled conditions (ie- a controlled experiment), but failing that, one can consider each new observation "in the wild" as an impromptu experiment. For example, every fossil discovery since Darwin has been an "experiment" of sorts: will this newly discovered fossil's age and nature fit with the predictions of Darwinian evolution, or not?

Question: Why do we want the least number of terms?

Answer: This is the logical principle of parsimony, known in this context as Occam's Razor. The basic idea is that if theory A is just as accurate as theory B but requires more terms, then those extra terms must be redundant. This will be a familiar concept to any mathematician; if you have two equations for a curve-fit and both are equally accurate, then the one which accomplishes this task with the least number of terms is superior. For example, since God is inscrutable, the inclusion of God cannot give a scientific theory any predictive capabilities that it didn't have before. Therefore, God is a redundant term, and that's why it is never found in any legitimate scientific theory.

Question: What if a theory is unfalsifiable?

Answer: Then it cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested, then it will lose to any theory which makes accurate predictions and can be tested.

Question: You invalidate theories if they violate fundamental laws. But fundamental laws are just widely accepted theories. Is this a form of circular logic? How can you absolutely disprove a theory with another theory?

Answer: You cannot. Absolutes are the useless realm of solipsists. However, a valid scientific theory must be consistent with all of our physical observations of the universe, not just a particular subset of those observations. By forcing a theory to be consistent with so-called fundamental laws, we are harmonizing it with the most accurate known descriptions of the largest possible number of observations. In effect, we are using a short-cut to quickly test our theory against a vast number of observations (those covered by the so-called fundamental laws) which would otherwise be outside the scope of our study. For example, if a theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, it would violate a theory which has been tested by every documented scientific observation in the history of mankind, which means that it fails an enormous number of tests before we even start to look at its specifics.

Question: Scientists and engineers trust the work of other researchers without necessarily verifying it themselves. Theories gain acceptance based on mass consensus among qualified scientists. Isn't this a form of appeal to authority or worse yet, appeal to popularity?

Answer: No. If they said "this is absolutely proven true because another scientist said so", then it would be an appeal to authority, but this is not the case. When a scientist or engineer applies an accepted theory which he has not personally tested, he is merely using the best known theory. Again, this is mere practicality; he cannot be absolutely certain that it is true, but it's the best tool he has to work with, so he's going to use it.

Question: Scientists have been wrong in the past. Doesn't this fact serve as indictment of the scientific method?

Answer: Of course they've been wrong in the past. Science makes no claims of omniscience or infallibility. However, the fact that their theories were eventually discarded is proof that the scientific method does work as advertised; it ruthlessly tests its own theories and destroys them if and when superior theories come along. Far from showing that science is weak, the public disclosure of past scientific errors shows that science continues to grow and improve, and will not lapse into mindless inflexible dogma the way religious fundamentalism has.

Question: But if you're not absolutely certain that scientific theories are correct, why should we have faith in them?

Answer: You shouldn't. "Faith" is a religious concept, and science does not ask for it. We do not have "faith" in scientific theories, but we do recognize that they constitute the best available description of the natural universe. Other descriptions exist (such as the stories of primitive mythologies), but while we cannot be absolutely certain that they are wrong, we can say that based on logic and all the objective evidence at hand, they are demonstrably inferior to those of science.

Question: What if the scientific community is engaged in a international conspiracy of lies, and they're in collusion to cover up the best theories in favour of inferior theories by distorting the facts and fabricating evidence?

Answer: Then science becomes useless. Scientists would injure their own profession. However, while a small number of individual scientists have committed fraud in the past, most would agree that the possibility of a systemic global conspiracy of lies in a profession whose entire basis is factual accuracy, honest research, and independent verification is so far-fetched, so fanciful, and so patently absurd that it cannot be accepted by any reasonable person. This is even more clear when one realizes that engineers would be forced to abandon scientific theories because their fraudulent nature could lead to disaster, and that a scientist can enhance his professional stature by exposing a fraud (eg- Piltdown Man) or overturning a long-standing theory (eg- Shoemaker). There is no incentive for anyone to help anyone else cover up the facts.

So Why the Praise?

Let's return to the earlier question: why do we praise objectivity, science, and logic in discussions of natural phenomena?

If you've been following along, then you will know from the dictionary definition that we praise objectivity in this context because natural phenomena are objective by definition, so the inclusion of subjective phenomena is a red herring. You will also know that we praise logic not because it tells us anything, but because it ensures that the conclusion really does follow from the premise (think of objectivity and logic as a combined machine; objectivity defines usable premises and logic tells us how to get from there to the conclusion). And finally, you will know that we praise science because it works. Not because it's certain, or proven, or guaranteed true, but because we lack omniscience, the scientific method is the next best thing, and it gives us the best possible theories. Since "guaranteed true" is not available, then "best possible" will have to do.

All three are tied together under the banner of science; in order to discuss natural phenomena, one is automatically restricting oneself to discussion of objective phenomena. In order to ensure that conclusions really do follow from premises, one must avoid pollution from subjective influences and restrict oneself to logical reasoning. In order to be scientific, one must employ logic and concern oneself only with objective phenomena. So while it is possible to be objective without being scientific or logical, or to be logical without being objective or scientific, it is not possible to be scientific without also being logical and objective.

Back to Square One

So why did I describe logic, objectivity, and science being cut down in intellectual battle? The answer is that I didn't. I described three arguments which were named logic, objectivity, and science being cut down in intellectual battle. Logic, science, and objectivity are all real concepts, but most people who throw those terms around know only that they are good things. They do not necessarily know what they truly mean.

Modern western society values rationalism and objectivity, but as far as most people are concerned, they are just rhetorical terms, to be used in place of "good" when you want to sound intelligent. They trust science not because they understand it, have studied it, or even know why it's useful, but because they are taught to view scientists as authorities, and they are taught to appeal to those authorities. And why? Because of shamefully widespread rote-learning methods, used in place of genuine education.

Rote-learning methods teach facts and conclusions without really teaching kids how to reason their way from one to the other. They teach concepts not by justifying them, but by forcing them down kids' throats as dogma. For many people in this society, science is taught to them in the form of religion: as a set of laws laid down by authorities, known to be true because scientists have superior intelligence and knowledge. It would be an enormous understatement to say that this is unwise, and it's not surprising that in this context, some people try to merge science with religion. Since they were taught science as if it's a religion, then why shouldn't they treat it as if it's religion? Small wonder, then, that some people refer to science as a cold, soulless religion; they judge it as a religion, and of course, it comes up wanting.

Unfortunately, rote-learning methods are very popular (and will continue to be so) for four reasons:

Speed: you can rapidly drill information into a student's head with good retention through rote-learning methods. This makes it an excellent tool for organizations such as military recruiters, who need to train large numbers of students in short periods of time. It is also useful for unscrupulous teachers who wish their students to do well on standardized tests and don't particularly care whether they have actually learned anything.
Convenience: drilling and other rote-learning methods are very convenient for the teacher. They require very little effort, and far less skill or subject knowledge than individual concept-based instruction. Again, this is useful for unscrupulous or under-qualified teachers. It is no secret that there is a skills shortage in science education (at least, in Canada and the United States), and rote-learning allows someone to "teach" a subject even if he does not understand it.
Effectiveness: given their limited goals (mindless memorization of facts rather than genuine comprehension), rote-learning methods do work. If those limited goals are acceptable (again, military recruitment comes to mind; enlisted men are taught through rote-learning methods while officers receive more conceptual learning), then rote-learning is highly effective, and there is no reason to stop using it.
Avoidance of criticism: rote-learning methods are a low-level form of brainwashing. When combined with various forms of deprivation, isolation, and/or drug treatment, they are a full-blown method of brainwashing. Taliban "schools" in Afghanistan made students mindlessly recite the words of the Koran, never allowing them to question or discuss it. Catholic schools used to do the same thing with the Bible in the first half of the last century (back when Adolf Hitler attended; perhaps this was part of the problem?), as well as various apocryphal texts and (especially) certain ritualistic prayers and penances, never allowing students to question their validity. Military training forces soldiers to follow procedures over and over and over, never allowing them to question those procedures. The human brain is a pattern recognition machine, and sufficient repetition imprints a pattern onto the brain regardless of logical objections.

As we can see, there are many strong motivations to use rote-learning methods. Some of them are practical, some of them are arguably immoral. However, none of them mean that rote learning produces a person who actually understands the subject. At best, it produces someone with a preliminary knowledge base who might go on to understand the subject, either through innate intelligence or further study. At worst, it produces someone for whom the teaching is accepted on a quasi-religious basis, and who has lost the intellectual capacity to analyze it rationally. Such a person may be deluded into thinking that he has logic, objectivity, and science on his side in intellectual battle, when in reality, he does not. All he has is inexperienced soldiers with the wrong equipment, and the wrong names on their dog-tags.

What's the moral of this story? If you want to talk about science in a debate, make sure you know what it is and what it isn't, before you begin. You'll save everybody a lot of time that way.

Last updated: March 3, 2002