"The mind that’s afraid to toy with the ridiculous will never create the brilliantly original…"

–David Brin, Brightness Reef


People don’t understand science.

And I don’t mean that your average person doesn’t understand how relativity works, or quantum mechanics, or biochemistry. Like any advanced study, it’s hard to understand them, and it takes a lifetime of work to become familiar with them.

No, what I mean is that people don’t understand the process of science. How a scientist goes from a list of observations and perhaps a handful of equations to understanding. To knowing.

And that’s a shame, because it’s a beautiful thing. It’s not mechanical, not wholly logical, and not plodding down a narrow path of rules and laws.

But it appears to me that this is how Douglas Todd, author of an article in the Vancouver Sun called

‘Scientism’ infects Darwinian debates: An unflinching belief that science can explain everything about evolution becomes its own ideology, thinks of science. He likens it to religion, an unflinching belief that science can explain everything. He calls this — as many have before him — scientisim:


Scientism is the belief that the sciences have no boundaries and will, in the end, be able to explain everything in the universe. Scientism can, like religious literalism, become its own ideology.

[…]

Those who unknowingly fall into the trap of scientism act as if hard science is the only way of knowing reality. If something can’t be “proved” through the scientific method, through observable and measurable evidence, they say it’s irrelevant.

Scientism is terribly limiting of human understanding. It leaves little or no place for the insights of the arts, philosophy, psychology, literature, mythology, dreams, music, the emotions or spirituality.


Right from the gate he’s using a strawman argument. There are many things science can’t explain currently, and no real scientist brushes those fields off as "irrelevant". And he’s wrong in saying that science leaves no room for all those other studies; it’s our study of human evolution that bring fantastic insight into why we have art, dreams, and mythology in the first place. What a strange notion, that science plays no role in those fields or our understanding of them!

But it’s in his understanding of science where Todd goes completely off course. What he says about science is exactly backwards, and it seems to me that he doesn’t understand the process of science, of how it’s done by real scientists in real life.

First off, there is no such thing as scientism. What he is describing is simply science, because science by its very nature is an attempt to explain all things using natural processes. And he seems to think science has no imagination.

That’s insane. Without imagination, all we can do is categorize the world. Assigning names and numbers, statistics and categories. And while that sort of thing is important in the scientific process, it’s not science itself. Without imagination, science is a dictionary.

And in fact the opposite of what Todd is saying is true. It takes no imagination at all to insert a supernatural explanation in some spot where you don’t understand the process. It’s all too easy to say "the bacterium flagellum could not have evolved," or "The Big Bang theory doesn’t explain why the Universe is homogeneous everywhere," and therefore "God did it." But it takes imagination, soaring, incredible, wonderful imagination, to look beyond the limitations of what’s currently known, and see what could possibly be… and even more imagination to make sure this venturing beyond current understanding still stays within the bound of reason and known rules of science.

You can always insert magic or belief or some supernatural power, but in the end that is a trap. Because someone else who is more imaginative than you will see the actual steps, the process reality made, and then you are left with an ever-narrowing amount of supernatural room in which to wiggle. And once that gap starts to narrow, the squeeze is inevitable. Your explanation will be forced to fill zero volume, and you’re done. Your explanation will be shown to be wrong for everyone to see, and your only recourse will be to abandon it, far too late to save your credibility.

Or to run for the Texas State Board of Education. But that’s certainly not science.

It took a vast leap of imagination for Max Planck to think of gas molecules in the Sun to behave like little springs, oscillating away, able to eject only specific colors of light. It took a leap of imagination for Alan Guth to think that the Big Bang theory wasn’t wrong, but incomplete, and to add inflation to explain why the Universe looks so smooth. It took Darwin’s breadth of imagination to correlate the vast amount of data he collected, and see that it was the unthinking mind of nature that forced species to adapt or die.

It’s all too easy to poopoo science, and to say that scientists are black and white automatons who go through the motions of the scientific method, rejecting anything with sparkle or color or surprise. But that conclusion itself lacks imagination. Science is full of wonder, of surprise, of leaps of imagination. If it were anything else, we wouldn’t have probes orbiting other worlds, we wouldn’t have vaccinations capable of wiping out scourges like smallpox, we wouldn’t have digital cameras, the Internet, ever-faster computers, cars, planes, televisions. We wouldn’t be able to feed ourselves, support our population, or look ahead to see where our decisions are taking us… and to see if these decisions are the right ones, and what to do to make them better.

Without imagination, even after all these centuries, we’d have learned nothing.

Science is imagination.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3715,Science-IS-imagination,Phil-Plait

The more you know in science, the more you realize how little we know.

Absolutely.

Science is a beautiful form of artistic and imaginative understanding.

Of course it does lead to understanding, and when it does, we can place great confidence in the understanding that has been revealed.

But I also agree with the following:



This is absolutely true as well. A scientific fundamentalist isn't any healthier than a religious fundamentalist.

There are things that science can say. And things that science can't say. And people should be careful about which is which.

It seems to me that this is the kind of assumption that starts this kind of debate. Usually this kind of statement is made to protect an idea from scientific inquiry, sometimes people do not want to know . . .

Without a proper distinction that clearly eliminates scientific reasoning from expressing a proper theory this is just an argument from ignorance.

Its wholly possible that science can explain everything.

Great article by Phill Plait from Bad Astronomy, love his blogs @ discovery.

Really?

Isn't that truly nothing more than a huge wet dream?

We have absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.

We can just as easily say that its "wholly possible" that the entire universe was created by the Wizard of Oz.

We'd be equally justified. So both statements are equally empty and devoid of any merit. The statement that you've made above is certainly not supported by science.

Can we truly say that science has ever genuinely explained anything at all really?

All that science has done is reveal how things have 'unfolded'. But it has never been able to show any explanation for how anything came to be in the first place or even why it has the properties it does.

Here's what science does:

Science looks at balls and says, "Ok let's examine these balls and see how they move."

Then they write down mathematical descriptions of how the balls move.

Fine. What have they explained?

Nothing!

All they've done is describe how the ball moves. They haven't explained what the ball are or why they have the properties they have. They just look at the balls and say, "They have mass, they have inertia, they have momentum, etc"

But when asked what all these properties are, or why the balls have these properties in the first place, science can't say a thing.

They'll just say, well, LOOK! Clearly the balls gave these properties, that's a GIVEN!

In fact, science relies on something like 22 "GIVENS" in this universe that it has absolutely no explanation for at all.

All it does is describe how these unexplained "things" behave.

So in a sense science hasn't "explained" anything. All it has done is describe how unexplained things behave.

~~~

So now let's look at something like the Easter Mystic view of the world and see how they are describing their Mysticism.

They look at consciousness, and say, "Clearly consciousness is all we can truly experience". It's their "GIVEN".

They have ONE "given".

They look at consciousness as the only thing we can truly experience and know directly. They say that consciousness obviously exists for us. So that's their starting point.

Then they move forward describing how everything arises from consciousness. And they have a quite elaborate system of explanations for this that is every bit as elaborate as science.

In a very real sense they are doing the very same thing as science. They are just starting with consciousness as their given instead of trying to grab the world by its balls.

So here the scientists are, trying to grab world by its balls claiming to have a better understanding of things. When in fact, they don't have anything. Their balls are illusive. In fact, when they get down to the quantum level they lose their balls altogether.

At the quantum level scientists have no balls.

All they have is a probability of finding their balls.

They have no idea what the balls are, where the balls come from, or even if the balls exist at all.

The Eastern Mystic simply says to the scientists, "When you lose your balls it's only because they are no longer in your consciousness"

In a very real sense, Eastern Mysticism and science are very much alike, they simply start out with different assumptions about what's 'given'.

They start with different premises of what constitutes the foundation of reality.

Eastern Mystics put their faith in their consciousness.

Scientists put their faith in their balls.

Why would anyone assume something unknowable?

It seems Abra is the type of person the OP is directly talking about HAHAHAH. Straw man arguments and all.

Great post smilles!

Who's assuming something that's unknowable?

You're the one who said, "Its wholly possible that science can explain everything."

How do you know that?

Everything the Eastern Mystics state is totally knowable via direct experience. In fact, they don't even bother making statements about anything that they can't know from direct experience.

Let's also not overlook the fact that the Eastern Mystics had described the same things that scientists finally discovered in quantum mechanics, except the Eastern Mystics discovered it eons earlier without any need to even build particle accelerators.

Unless your assuming something unknowable, then there is no reason to think science cannot explain anything.

Its the leading characteristic of an open mind to leave open the possibility of learning more about a topic in the face of uncertainty.

Anything not impossible, is possible. Why start from a default of negativity, which is exactly what you do when you assume science cannot explain anything.



So am I a scientific fundamentalist becuase I believe that just becuase science has not explained something does not mean it cannot?

Let me ask you abra, how do YOU know which is which?

Before you two start refueling your flamethrowers, I'd like to get something clarified.

I'm having a hard time conceiving of "somthing that is unknowable".

A little help please?

Me too.

It goes along with my question. How do you know unknowable when you see it? What makes unknowable distinct from knowable, but as of yet unknown?

Its a great epistemological question of which I have heard no good answer.

This is why I believe if something is to be assumed, its the positive, that things can be known.

I guess I didn’t ask the question right.

You said:

I couldn’t figure out what that “something unknowable” was referring to.

In terms of sentence structure, “something unknowable” is the object of the sentence. But I could find no referent for that object. I assumed the referent was to something Abra said, but I couldn’t figure out what that referent was.

What is the referent for “something unknowable” in your statement?

I'm going by what science currently holds to be true.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle demands that no further information can be had.

So I'm just accepting the science for what it states.

I disagree with your statement that science has merely not explained QM. From my point of view science has accepted QM.

That's what I've been taught in all the courses I've ever taken and ever book I've ever read on science.

QM is currently accepted as science. And QM says, no more information can be had.

That's how I know which is which.

I ACCEPT the discoveres of science.

Apparently you don't.

You seem to be holding out that the current scientific understanding will be discovered to be wrong.

I've studied this my entire life, and I've come to accept that it sure looks like it's right to me. I see no reason to believe that it might be wrong at this point. I've been through the math. I'm convinced that the mathematics is sound.

Every great scientist who has ever worked on this problem attempting to thwart it has only confirmed it.

Look at John Bell, he was out to prove Einstein's case and show where Neils Bohr was wrong. What did he do? He ended up proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that Neils Bohr is dead on!

How much proof do you need?

When are you going to accept the findings of science?

When they match up with what you'd personally like to believe?

I don't see science not knowing the answer to this problem. I see that they found the answer. The answer is that that it's not possible to know anymore about it.

Superposition is real.

Quantum Complementarity is real.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is true and will never be twarted.

I acccept it. I believe it. The mathematics looks good to me.

I can't find any flaws in it, and trust me I've tried.

What makes you think that science is wrong on this one?

Science does not say we cannot know!

Science says we do not know, and there is a big difference between those two statements.

That would be a misrepresentation of science. Calling philosophy science.

I'm not talking about science in general.

I'm talking about the science of Quantum Mechanics.

When do you finally accept the science?

I mean, I understand that it's a healthy part of science to be skeptical, but there comes a time when you either accept the science or flat out reject it.

Personally I've accepted it. But you and Jeremy are still rejecting it. I think that's good to a point. But when do you decide that you're just not going to believe science?

Where's the line?

How much of other parts of science have you accepted?

Why do you find it so impossible to accept QM?

I don't understand this idea of rejecting science in the name of science. It's just seems kind of silly to me.

There is no scientific reason to believe that QM is wrong.

If you're going to accept science, then why not accept it?

This constant rejecting of Quantum Mechanics in the name of science is utterly absurd. Quantum Mechanics IS science!

Your argument is fallacious is so many ways.

I cannot speak for Jeremy, but I would think he would agree with me here. I am not rejecting QM, just your interpretation of it. QM says we do not know. You say it says we cannot know.

There is a big difference between those two statements.

I quoted and underlined it in my 4th post.


Richard Feynmen said that if you think you understand QM, you do not understand QM.

These epistemological conclusions that abra is reaching DEFIES that notion.

For being an amateur you sure do have lots of confidence in your interpretations of what QM "says" sir abracadabra magic man.

And if you claim to be a professional then please provide the year and university you graduated so I can call and find out if this is the garbage they taught you.

science can infact tell us how he balls got there and why they act the way they do, after a great deal of time, obbserving the balls, we can use science to go backwards to the beginning is this not true for anything else we have studied? it may not say exactly WHy something has the values and properties it does, but it can if you let it, and if you ask why, instead of askhow.

I'm not even talking about an interpretation at all.

Superposition and Quantum Complementarity, are just other ways of stating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

There's no interpretation require.

You guys are hung up on cause and effect. But where in all of science does science even say that it's all about cause and effect of that cause and effect is even required in science?

It's doesn't! That's a misinterpretation of science right there!

QM isn't a breakdown of science. QM is a success of science!

Science follows the "Scientific Method" of observation, hypothesis, experiment, more obervation, more hypothesis, more experiment until a hypothesis has been observed to have been verified observationally.

Where in all of that is there any restriction that thing must follow from cause and effect?

It just isn't even in there.

You guys are trying to act like science demands cause and effect when in fact it doesn't. There's nothing in the scientific methods that demands cause and effect.

QM does not defy science, it's not a breakdown of science. There's nothing scientitfically wrong with QM at all.

It's not a matter of trying to figure it out in terms of cause and effect before you can say that we understand it. That's a total misconception right there.

In the case of QM the hypothesis after much investigation and experiement was the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and that hypothesis has been observed and experimentally verified in billions of quantum events ever since.

That's the scientific method.

I'm not coming up with a 'personal interpretation'. This isn't about personal interpretations at all.

In order for you guys to be right, QM would need to FALL.

QM would need to turn out to be WRONG!

Period.

So you're not accepting science at all. All you're doing is rejecting science in the hopes that you can restore a 'cause and effect' explanation.

But there's nothing in science that says that anything has to have a cause and effect explanation. If that were TRUE then science would already be DEMANDING how things must be and what the answer must be. Science would be nothing more than a religion that believes in Cause and Effect.

But that's now what science is at all!

That's where you guys are totally WRONG!

Science doesn't demand that things must operate on cause and effect.

That totally false!

All that the scientific method demands is that we make a hypothesis, and then do experiments and obersvations that either confirm it or deny it the hypothesis. No where in science does it say that all hypothesis must demand cause and effect!

You guys are treating science like as if it's a religion that worships cause and effect which is totaly BULL CRAP!

Science makes no such pre-disposed conclusions about the world.

The hypothesis of QM is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that states that when the quantum field isn't interacting with observed phenomenom the quantum field is necessarily in 'superposition' of potentiality.

And so far, every experimental observation that we have ever made is in perfect agreement with this hypothesis.

So when you guys act like this is a non-scientific result and you reject QM in favor of maybe someday discovering that this Heisenberg Uncertainty Princicple is wrong, then all you are doing is rejecting the Scientific Method in favor of worshiping a personal desire to have a cause-and-effect explanation.

You're rejecting science! And you're claiming to do this in the name of science which is totally BULL CRAP.

Actually what you are really doing is rejecting the scientific method in favor of your own intuitive belief that there must be a cause and effect explanation.

You're rejecting the results of science, which is QM.

In order for your cherished notions of cause and effect to be reinstated QM must fall!

You're basically demanding that QM is incomplete!

But that was what the whole Einstein-Bohr debates were all about!

Einstein held out that QM is necessarily incomplete. And a whole lot of scientists also tried to prove that this is the case. They have all failed to do so, and everytime they've tried all they've done is give even more evidence of why it must necessarily be completely just as it stands.

So you guys are actually denouncing the scientific method in favor of holding out for your own personal religious belief in cause and effect explanations.

Your not representing science, all your doing is denying it!