![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Science, Philosophy and Truth
Science – What it is and what it's not
Firstly, I think it would be wise to remind ourselves exactly what Science is.
Science today is a collaborative truth-seeking endeavour. It is based upon experimentation, inference, deduction. We progress by formulating “hypotheses” (we'll accord these the status of conjecture – non-evidenced, or at least evidenced insufficiently to justify grading it as anything better). We then attempt to falsify it. Unlike the positivism of previous times, we follow Popper's school of thought and have recognised that withstanding falsification makes hypotheses far more robust than simply gathering evidence in favour of something.
For example, if I had the hypothesis “All swans are white” we could go about testing it in one of two ways: (1) observing swans and recording that all of them are white (positivism) (2) actively seeking swans which are not white in order to neatly demonstrate that, even if 99.9% of swans are white, the hypothesis is false – all it would take is one black swan to falsify the hypothesis.
After surviving the onslaught of repeated attempts at falsification, we grow to be more confident that the hypothesis is non-spurious, that is to say that it isn't false, or there isn't some other underlying factor which may explain it instead.
For example, we might hypothesise that, given the higher incidence of crime amongst blacks, they are genetically-inclined towards crime. We could provide reams and reams of data supporting this. We could even attempt to falsify the hypothesis by finding one case where it was not true. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the observation, despite attempted falsification, holds true across all samples. Does that mean the hypothesis is true? Well, no, because it still may be spurious – have we looked at all the casual mechanisms which drive crime? Have we accounted for the fact that being black may be a proxy/indicator of some other underlying mechanism which does explain crime? Now, if we control for wealth, education and single-parenthood and look again, we find that the supposed difference between blacks and non-blacks disappears. It wasn't their skin-colour which was a “cause” of crime, but instead an indicator of some other factor – blacks, for example, tend to comprise lower-ranked socio-economic groups, have been afforded lower average levels of education (this has been attributed to imposed guilt from old-school racists who consider getting an education to be “White” thing and that for blacks to go to university is to be playing Uncle Tom) and have higher levels of paternal abandonment/delinquency. So, we can see that whilst on the face of it our hypothesis may have been true, in actuality it was spurious.
Therein lies the problem – it is impossible for us to ever be certain that our ideas are not spurious. There always exists the tiniest possibility (sometimes the great possibility) that we've overlooked something in the casual web of life. This, in concert with the fact that we do not have the ability to infinitely test hypotheses (we are bound by time and expense and mortality), means that Science is provisionalist. Nothing, strictly-speaking, is “certain”. We might have tested a hypothesis a million times over, and it has survived being assailed from every conceivable angle, but that doesn't mean it is “proven” or “certain”.
Science does not deal in proofs. Maths does, though that is because one can say that, given the axioms, something necessarily follows. It's the same as using formalised logic. However, even in maths, it relies on us all agreeing that the axioms are correct. We can all agree that 1+1 = 2 or that A + B = B + A, but what if we arbitrarily choose to ignore these axioms, which have no need to be accepted bar the fact that they appear self-evident? Well, not an awful lot. It's a problem we cannot get around, and perhaps philosophical pedants may find it problematic, but most of us get along with our lives happy to not quibble over axioms.
The idea of axioms ties in with a lot of the problems we see in debates of a religious variety – the Theist has unfounded self-evident axioms that God exists, the Atheist does not. Regardless of how compelling the arguments might be, there can never be concession or agreement because they are coming from axiomatically different backgrounds. Thoughtful Theists do not have this problem – they can usually be impartial enough to at least consider the non-existence of a God, but this doesn't tend to be true with Creationists, as mentioned earlier. If one just states “I do not believe X”, to which you ask why and they simply respond, “just because”, there's not an awful lot we can do …
Now, despite our inability to have actual “certainty”, does that mean that we should fail to recognise levels of evidence, support and substantiation in Science? Not at all. We accord the status of “Theory”, or sometimes “Law” to those things which are demonstrated and evidenced to such a degree that we have almost entirely removed any doubt of their truth. The helio-centric galaxy (Earth revolving around the Sun, as opposed to the opposite), the Earth being spherical as opposed to flat, gravity, evolution, germ theory of disease, plants photosynthesising light to produce energy – all of these things are at that stage of understanding. We have exhaustively tried to falsify them, and failed at every turn that it would be almost miraculous if they were incorrect.
Should we call these “certain”? “Facts”? “Truths”? Depending on semantics, the pedant would say “No”. To the layman, or those who seek short-hand definitions instead of long-winded definitions with a ton of caveats? “Yes”. Whilst it may be philosophically incorrect to describe the theory of geo-spehericism as certain, very few of us would pipe up and correct someone if they simply said “The Earth is round”, informing them that, actually, they should say, “As far as the evidence suggests, and in spite of persistent attempts at falsification, the general consensus is that the Earth is spherical, though we can be by no means fully certain of this – it may be flat, toroidal or various other shapes. In fact it may not even exist. It's hard to say really”.
Reductio ad absurdum, perhaps, but the point is true.
When I say of things, like evolution that they are “9999.9%” certainties, it is concession to that tiniest remotest chance that somehow we're all wrong. Usually, however, we will simply describe evolution as a “Fact”. I should also perhaps clarify that not only is the “descendancy from a universal common ancestor” form of evolution factual in this sense, but so too is the “natural selection” form of it. The phenomenon (universal relatedness) and the mechanism (natural selection) are both sufficiently well-understood enough to be considered as a “Fact” to all but the philosophical pedant.
Macro/Micro-Causality and Our Day-to-Day Lives
It has been argued that, because of our relative uncertainty and incomprehension at the quantum level, our understanding of the Universe must be inherently tenuous or flawed. The fact that we (apparently, and who I am to argue without doing a Phd. In physics) live in an 11-dimensional Universe does not, however, mean we cannot understand the functioning of our 3-dimensions.
Let us look for at something which has been said in the forum thread which started off this essay:
“... since we are all wrong about everything the moment we try to give an answer. Only questions are ever true ...”
I humbly submit that Paris is indeed in the Northern hemisphere of the Earth. I further submit that on my birth certificate it says that my parents are David Alan Rees and Christine Maria Rees.
These are truths. Or at least, truth as far as the majority would agree. The philosophical pedant may point out “ah, but how can you know that you perceive the birth certificate properly, that is in concordance with what actually exists? How do you know that your brain processes the inputs properly and that it correctly renders the world as it is? How do we know that we all don't really exist?”.
To which solipsism I can only cite Descartes – “cogito ergo sum”, or “I think, therefore I am”.
Now, it may be the case that we are all involved in a mass-delusion, but unless we choose to accept that the world can be so completely misunderstood (in which case our very lives strike me as meaningless, erratic and unpredictable, and nothing can be understood), the city that the French call “Paris” is indeed in what we define as the “Northern hemisphere” of the planet we call, in the English language, “Earth”.
I humbly submit that I am not wrong in this.
We are certainly confounded (Feynman famously said that if one claims to have understood Quantum Mechanics they clearly haven't) by the very most micro-level of existence. But does this mean that our understanding of the macro-level is therefore flawed? I would contend not.
Our understanding of how more complex aggregations of smaller reductionist units work is far more reliable than that of the units themselves. We understand that a kettle will boil if heat is applied to the water far more readily than we do the sub-particular physics which drives this macro-level phenomenon. So too, we understand that if we hit a nail in to a piece of soft wood with a hammer, it will be driven further in to the wood. It is far more likely this will happen than the nail will instead pop out, perform a 1970s disco-dancing routine, and then bury itself in our forehead. Everything we do in our lives is predicated upon the accuracy of our understanding of macro-level causality.
To the philosophical pedant who might consider that our lack of understanding of 8 of our dimensions of existence to preclude us from understanding our 3 dimensions - do you not turn a key in a car to drive to work expectant, provided nothing in the mechanics are faulty, that chemical combustion will ensue which will drive the motor and, by accepted physical mechanics of motion and locomotion, get you to work? Do you not accept that, in absence of sustenance, both water and nutritional, that your body's bio-chemical, bio-electric and kinetic functions will cease to work? Do you not accept that flinging yourself off the roof of a 100-story high office building with only concrete pavement below will only ever result in you being either severely injured or dead?
Does the philosophical pedant genuinely expect that these things could be any different? That our understanding of this macro-level causality is flawed? That, across the billions of attempted daily falsifications, not once have these “certainties” failed? Sure, we cannot guarantee with certainty that there may not, one day, be some miraculous reason why, ceteris paribus (all things being held equal), we could repeat these processes and find the result to be different. But does that really mean we should quibble over our clear understanding of the 3-dimensional world we perceive (4-dimensional assuming time)?
No matter how random or unpredictable the most reductive level of causality is, it appears to behave in predictable levels the further up the causal chain we go. I'll leave physicists or better-informed scientists than I to explain why. In many respects, though, it is much like evolution – whilst one can feed in random inputs (genetic mutation/quantum uncertainty), the end-results are decidedly non-random – they remain subject to the laws which dictate how those inputs are treated (natural selection/physical laws) before churning out results (adaptation/predictable causality).
Scope, Universality of Truth and the Science/Philosophy Interplay
On to the next issue – the accusation that Science offers hypotheses or theories which are only “part of the truth”.
To quote:
“Almost all scientifc [sic] ideas are eventually shown to be just a small piece of the puzzle"
Well, duh!
All scientific theory or hypothesis has defined scope – it states what area of knowledge/reality it covers and attempts to explain. Science is, contrary to layman belief, not some monolithic behemoth. There is a scientific “canon” in the sense of accepted peer-reviewed research and general scientific consensus, but there is not one vast entity called Science – it is simply an aggregation of workers and their research from hundreds of sub-disciplines.
To say that one expects that theories should be doing more than they claim is to fundamentally misunderstand what theories or hypotheses are. A common complaint from Creationists is that “The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection” does not deal with abiogenesis, how the Earth came to be or even how the Universe came to be as it was.
What they don't realise is that this doesn't matter. All it has to do is explain, given that life does exist and has a vehicle for creating heritable change, how life develops.
Evolution does not claim to be a cure-all – a cohesive world-view and philosophy of life. It is a scientific theory which explains how gradual cumulative phenotypical change, actioned by random mutation selected through survival and reproduction which leads to differential allele frequencies in specific populations, accounts for the diversity and complexity of life on this planet (and, arguably, beyond).
Neither evolution, nor germ theory of disease, nor gravity claims to explain everything. What they do, however, is clearly, conclusively and with vast mountains of evidence, explain how the area within their remit works.
Another commonly baffling claim which keeps on popping up is:
“I always said it has its place.... but its not my “truth”"
or
"evolution is true for me"
These quotes, and various similar ones that I hear on a regular basis, seem to confuse what is being discussed. Science does not hold forth on ethics, values, emotions, morality. It doesn't tell us what is good or is bad, what is important or unimportant, how we should use knowledge or live our lives. Science is simply an epistemological endeavour – a means by which we can gain knowledge and understanding.
When it comes to matters of Science and the world in general, there are absolute “truths” - the issue of whether, if you apply heat to water that it will become hotter is a question of empirical fact. Either it does or it doesn't. The issue of whether Kiev is the declared administrative capital of Ukraine is an empirical question. There is no room for relativism or multiple “truths”. Either something is right or wrong.
Not all life is like this, clearly – many issues, especially those which philosophy grapples with, is not clear cut. There is no absolute truth in matters, say, of morality or beauty. There are things you can reason out using formalised logic, but these rely on the axioms being right (and usually these are the things up for debate in the first place). There are systems of thought which can be discounted for internal inconsistency or unintelligibility, but assuming the systems are coherent then there is no absolute or objective measure by which we can judge one to be better than the other.
Not so in Science, we have evidence. The reason why we don't “teach the controversy” (in some places at least) with respect to Evolution/Creationism, for example, is there is none. Creationism (or “Intelligent Design”) is totally devoid of scientific content. It has no evidence, nothing worthwhile to say (nothing which hasn't been refuted, at least). So too why we only teach the Universe is helio-centric as opposed to geo-centric. The evidence is so strongly in favour of heliocentricity compared to geocentricity that we can objectively say that it is a stronger hypothesis. That, given its security in evidence, it is “truth”, or at least as close to truth as we have at the time. Our certainty of how accurately it reflects reality varies as it progresses from a simple hypothesis (very much open to it being wrong or incomplete) to law or fully-fledged theory (being effectively true).
The “truth” of how biological evolution works is not something relative. It cannot be true for me, but untrue for you. It is either right or it is wrong, truth or falsehood. Mealy-mouthed relativism has its place in subjective areas, but in empirical truth it is worse than useless. It is the calling-card of those without evidence and who still wish to hold on to unsupported beliefs. Truth, ultimately, will out – if something is worthy of being accepted it eventually will be, because evidence to support it arises. Various scientific theories, including evolution, were ridiculed prior to their mass acceptance. The strength of evidence, however, eventually made it unrefutable – so much so that even the Anglican and Catholic Communions (represented by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope respectively), 2 of the figures with the most theological reason to oppose such scientific understanding, accept it. So too with Galileo's theory of heliocentrism, for which he was arrested and tortured, and only recently “apologised” to.
No-one claims that Science or a scientific worldview is sufficient. It can inform us of how things work, and is essential to our understanding of things, and how to avoid thinking “incorrectly” and being subject to fallacy, but it doesn't tell us what is beautiful (ok, in some ways it can, given that there are universalities of “beauty” such as symmetry), moral, or valuable. To talk of multiple truths is to misunderstand Science's role in the world – it doesn't claim to be the only thing worthwhile in the world. What Science is, however, is the only meaningful and non-fallacious way we can acquire reliable knowledge of the way the Universe is. It may not be complete, it may not always be certain, but it is without doubt the best. No other method of inquiry or discovery has ever been formulated which is more coherent, nor have the results ever been comparable, let alone extant.
Philosophy and Science need not be at odds – one should inform the other. Philosophy helps us to understand the epistemological process, can help us consider what truth and evidence really are, how we should go about ensuring that our research is the most effective and the most efficient, the most rigorous and useful it can be. So too can Science guide Philosophy – arguments of the sanctity of life, of personal identity, of human nature. All of these things can be informed by scientific insight. Genetics, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology alone have revolutionised the way we understand human nature, all in a period of about 50 years!
Philosophy of Science should be mandatory teaching to all budding scientists. We need to understand why Science works, its potential short-comings, its limitations and its role in the world. We need Philosophy to guide on ethics, both in terms of what we research and how we research it. But we should not let solipsistic and pessimistic philosophy hamper our endeavours. It is far too easy to fall prey to over-philosophising and becoming so mired in pettiness and pedantry that we lose the ability to make meaningful progress and create insight.
