Do they understand science?
Very recently a number of books attacking religion have been published, I must admit I have read none of them. But I have read a number of articles attacking them, the most recent was by John Gray in the Guardian. In all of the attacks including that one, there is a fundamental misundersting of science, whether wilfull or just ignorance is hard to determine. It is also a phenomenon that I have noticed quite geenrally in conversations, especially about global warming. Those who wish to deny it do so with a frevour which is close to religious, hanging on to any thread of doubt they can to hang on to their beliefs.
So what is this big misunderstanding. The attackers seem to argue that science is the same as religion and that people just have faith in science. This just shows up the failure to understand that in science theories are only believed until they are proved false whereas religion is never proved false. Christians still believe in the second coming, 2000 years later. When will they give up. Never I assume since there is no way to faslify their claims, only to prove them true!
The key point about science is that it begins by collecting data, at least historically, it then tries to formulate a theory which explains the data and then makes predictions. If the predictions and any new data fits the theory people accept the theory. But two things happen, new data is found which does not fit or predictions are made which turn out to be false. At that point the original theory has to be given up and a revised, or sometimes, a completely new theory developed.
One of the ways that new facts emerge is thorugh more accurate measurements. If we consider Boyle's Law for gases, PV=RT, very neat and quite simplistic. But it was quite effective and a reasonable approximation for many purposes, especially in the early stages of the steam age. As we could get higher pressues, tempratures and could measure things more accurately it was realised that it was correct and had to be modified, this was done and helped create the Kinetic Theory of gases. As far as I know, nobody had their heads chopped off or were burnt at the stake for these new theories and Boyle's Law was still taught in schools as the first approximation. It is still true that if you heat gas in a fixed tank enough it will blow up! That is the way of science, experiment, predict and keep going and when it goes wrong think again.
It is true that sometimes people expound theories which are rejected but turn out to be true, orthodoxy triumphs over rationality but not often and the cases one thinks of there are often weaknesses in the new theory which enable people to cling on to the old ones. It is rather like those who don't want to believe in climate change, they don't want to believe is so they try to hang on to every weakness in the theory, perhaps you could say the same for those who deny evolution.
The essence of a good life is willing to admit you might have been wrong!
So what is this big misunderstanding. The attackers seem to argue that science is the same as religion and that people just have faith in science. This just shows up the failure to understand that in science theories are only believed until they are proved false whereas religion is never proved false. Christians still believe in the second coming, 2000 years later. When will they give up. Never I assume since there is no way to faslify their claims, only to prove them true!
The key point about science is that it begins by collecting data, at least historically, it then tries to formulate a theory which explains the data and then makes predictions. If the predictions and any new data fits the theory people accept the theory. But two things happen, new data is found which does not fit or predictions are made which turn out to be false. At that point the original theory has to be given up and a revised, or sometimes, a completely new theory developed.
One of the ways that new facts emerge is thorugh more accurate measurements. If we consider Boyle's Law for gases, PV=RT, very neat and quite simplistic. But it was quite effective and a reasonable approximation for many purposes, especially in the early stages of the steam age. As we could get higher pressues, tempratures and could measure things more accurately it was realised that it was correct and had to be modified, this was done and helped create the Kinetic Theory of gases. As far as I know, nobody had their heads chopped off or were burnt at the stake for these new theories and Boyle's Law was still taught in schools as the first approximation. It is still true that if you heat gas in a fixed tank enough it will blow up! That is the way of science, experiment, predict and keep going and when it goes wrong think again.
It is true that sometimes people expound theories which are rejected but turn out to be true, orthodoxy triumphs over rationality but not often and the cases one thinks of there are often weaknesses in the new theory which enable people to cling on to the old ones. It is rather like those who don't want to believe in climate change, they don't want to believe is so they try to hang on to every weakness in the theory, perhaps you could say the same for those who deny evolution.
The essence of a good life is willing to admit you might have been wrong!
posted by Unknown at
11:23 PM
|
0 comments
