the idea of the contradiction comes from what I see as the deepest misunderstanding about science, which is the idea that science is about certainty.
Because obviously it’s easy to suggest that the earth sort of floats in nothing, but then you have to answer the question: why doesn’t it fall? The genius of Anaximander was to answer this question. We know his answer, from Aristotle, from other people. He doesn’t answer this question, in fact. He questions this question. He says why should it fall? Things fall toward the earth. Why the earth itself should fall? In other words, he realizes that the obvious generalization from every small heavy object falling, to the earth itself falling, might be wrong. He proposes an alternative, which is that objects fall towards the earth, which means that the direction of falling changes around the earth. […]
…what is being challenged at every step is not the theory, it’s the conceptual structure used in constructing theories and interpreting the data. In other words, it’s not changing theories that we go ahead, but changing the way we think about the world. […]
Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain. In fact, not only it’s not certain, but it’s the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure, but because they are the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they are the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody’s criticism. […]
Like João Figueiredo I was tempted to keep quoting the article. It’s simply a fantastic read. I come across some of the ideas/comments presented in the article when anti-science people comment on my posts or friend’s posts. At first glance, the anti-science people might find support in this article. However, if you read the whole thing, what he says at the end resonates with me and hopefully with other pro-science advocates.
#ScienceEveryday curated by ScienceSunday (Allison Sekuler Rajini Rao Robby Bowles and me)
Originally shared by João Figueiredo
Magnificent interview with quantum physicist Carlo Rovelli, where he dwells on what is Science and his passion with the pre-Socratic philosopher Anaximander:
Let me tell you a story to explain what I mean. The story is an old story about my latest, greatest passion outside theoretical physics: an ancient scientist, or so I would say, even if often he is called a philosopher: Anaximander. […]
Until him, all the civilizations of the planet, everybody around the world, thought that the structure of the world was: the sky over our heads and the earth under our feet. There’s an up and a down, heavy things fall from the up to the down, and that’s reality. Reality is oriented up and down, heaven’s up and earth is down. Then comes Anaximander and says: no, is something else. ‘The earth is a finite body that floats in space, without falling, and the sky is not just over our head; it is all around.’ […]
How he gets it? Well obviously he looks at the sky, you see things going around, the stars, the heavens, the moon, the planets, everything moves around and keeps turning around us. […] nobody else got to this simple realization that the sky is not just over our head, it’s also under our feet. Why?
Because obviously it’s easy to suggest that the earth sort of floats in nothing, but then you have to answer the question: why doesn’t it fall? The genius of Anaximander was to answer this question…_
How? Well, you can either watch the interview or read the transcript… If you need some context on Anaximander, I suggest The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps podcast on him:
July 4, 2012
Interesting read… some of it is way beyond my understanding – but it tweaks my imagination none-the-less. Too bad more scientists don’t have his frame of mind when it comes down to it. I’ve always said there is as much Faith in Science as there is in in Religion.
July 4, 2012
Stacy Stutz I think you might be getting the wrong impression. He doesn’t talk about faith at all. There’s a difference between knowing and believing. I was hoping not to quote the paragraph about religion but you might have missed it.
The final consideration regards just one comment about this understanding of science and this long conflict that has crossed the centuries between scientific thinking and religious thinking. I think often it is misunderstood. The question is, why can’t we live happily together, and why can’t people pray to their gods and study the universe without this continuous clash? I think that this continuous clash is a little bit unavoidable, for the opposite reason from the one often presented. It’s unavoidable not because science pretends to know the answers. But it’s the other way around, because if scientific thinking is this, then it is a constant reminder to ourselves that we don’t know the answers.
In religious thinking, often this is unacceptable. What is unacceptable is not a scientist that says I know, but it’s a scientist that says I don’t know, and how could you know? Based, at least in many religions, in some religions, or in some ways of being religious, an idea that there should be truth that one can hold and not be questioned. This way of thinking is naturally disturbed by a way of thinking which is based on continuous revision, not of the theories, of even the core ground of the way in which we think.
The real crux of his argument is uncertainty. With faith you cannot have uncertainty.
July 4, 2012
Ahh, but you can have faith in uncertainty. Just as a scientist knows there is an answer even though he can’t answer it. But, he’s right in that it is “often unacceptable” but wrong thinking is not held solely in either the religious or the science community.
Science and religion have much in common – very few want to admit that. Both seek for answers to questions that go beyond our ability to understand.
July 4, 2012
Stacy Stutz I think you mean spirituality rather than religion. The means for seeking answers in science are quite different than in religion. Spirituality or philosophy on the other hand can have commonality with science in seeking answers. At least that’s my opinion.
July 4, 2012
Chad Haney it’s late here so I shall have to try and figure out how to put my thoughts to paper and explain in the morning.
July 4, 2012
Sounds good. Sleep well. Stacy Stutz
July 4, 2012
Filippo Salustri and Jonathan Langdale you guys might like this article. Apologies in advance if you do not.
July 4, 2012
Great article and comments.
July 4, 2012
I know it’s a long read but I enjoyed it thoroughly.
July 4, 2012
Chad Haney Thanks!
July 4, 2012
You are welcome Filippo Salustri I’m glad João Figueiredo shared it in the first place.
July 4, 2012
Yes, I was tempted to quote the whole thing! 🙂
July 4, 2012
Sorry this is so long…
Faith, as defined by Merriam-Webster, has two definitions in the context that I am using it a) a complete belief and trust in God and b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Some would argue that these definitions are one in the same, and that is fine. An Atheist says there is no proof that God exists – he will often point to science saying that it can answer everything. A religious zealot will deny that science is valid – even in the face of proof. In my opinion, these people represent two sides of the same coin.
Philosophy also has two pertaining definitions per Merriam-Webster, a) the pursuit of wisdom and b) an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental belief. I don’t think I would be far off the mark to say that both the Atheist and the Zealot eschew both. One of the strongest commonalities that define these two far right and far left groups is they are amazingly close-minded and have little to no tolerance for any thoughts that do not echo their own.
Carlo Rovelli wrote:
“The very expression ‘scientifically proven’ is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices. In our conceptual structure for grasping reality [sic] there might be something not appropriate, something we may have to revise to understand better. So at any moment, we have a vision of reality that is effective, it’s good, it’s the best we have found so far. It’s the most credible we have found so far, its [sic] mostly correct.”
This is the comment from a man with a remarkably open mind. How much further would our understanding of Science go if scientists revisit the foundational “truths” that their theories are based on? As our technology improves, it makes sense that we shall find that some of the foundational premises may have been inaccurate.
I understand why this would be difficult for science; again, the “blame” can be laid at the feet of my above coin. For many years, we’ve been taught that in science, the words theory and fact are interchangeable and (in my opinion) that was a singularly narrow-minded approach. Philosophically, there is no such thing as a fact, all things are relative to our perception, experience and the given technology of the time. What we use to base our facts on is fluid. We may laugh at the notion that not long ago people believed the world to be flat, but in that time, it was a valid scientific theory. But, people’s experience grew and technology advanced so perceptions changed and that particular theory was debunked. Zealots often use any show of “weakness” in science as a tool to bludgeon science, unfairly.
So, how does Faith exist in uncertainty within both Science and Religion? I think that can be answered in the question of Creation; no matter if your answer is “big bang” or God, a person that is seeking true wisdom or examining the grounds of a fundamental theory will ask the next logical question, “and before that?” And the answer to that question requires Faith as it is truly the unknown quotient. Both sides must accept that there must be something prior but at this time it is unanswerable – it is truly the “I don’t know” answer.
July 4, 2012
I’m always confused by the notion that one must accept that something be unanswerable when you’re not even familiar with how it works or what caused it. The uncertainty principle and/or maybe incompleteness are concepts we think we understand.
More often than not we’ve learned things we’ve previously assumed was unknowable. How many times have we assumed we can know something and come to learn that we cannot?
Science and religion are fundamentally different and should not be compared. They are so completely opposite. Just because you can argue that ultimately an axiom must be taken to be true when it is unprovable does not mean the same thing as faith. Faith would stop there, sit back in it’s recliner and watch some TV. A scientist pushes the boundary. There is no true acceptance. It’s a temporary measure within a known uncertainty upon which to base further hypothesis.
It may be possible to learn what happened before the Big Bang. And if there is some deity at work, it may even be possible to uncover it or to rule it out. But this will not occur with blind faith.
July 4, 2012
Stacy Stutz wrote: “An Atheist says there is no proof that God exists – he will often point to science saying that it can answer everything.”
All that shows is that some atheists are ignorant of science. It says nothing about science itself.
Stacy Stutz wrote: “A religious zealot will deny that science is valid – even in the face of proof.”
The zealot is deluded. That’s different from ignorance. Not at all 2 sides of the same coin.
“Proof” in science is different than “proof” in mathematics, like “theory” in science is different from “theory” in lay language.
Stacy Stutz wrote: “…no matter if your answer is “big bang” or God, a person that is seeking true wisdom or examining the grounds of a fundamental theory will ask the next logical question, “and before that?””
It’s only logical if you assume there was a “before.” We don’t know that. If, for instance, Hawking is right, then there was no time before the big bang, so it’s incorrect to talk about “before the big bang.”
“I don’t know” is a perfectly legitimate scientific answer, one that any sensible scientist would use. It’s the religulous who love to jump up and down and scream shrilly that scientists don’t know – and therefore cannot know – the answers to these questions. And that’s (one of) the (many) problem(s) with religion.
Religion poisons everything.
July 4, 2012
Jonathan Langdale If you notice, I qualified my statement about being unanswerable at this time. But I think that it is a truism that the more we learn, the more we find we do not know.
By its very definition, faith is taking something to be true without proof. That does not mean that we sit back and blindly accept it as truth, it is the reality we accept until we are proven wrong.
July 4, 2012
Filippo Salustri sigh. I don’t disagree that some religious folks jump up and down and make idiots of themselves – but the truth is some scientists are just as guilty. They (on both sides) are also the squeaky wheels and get the most “air time” Let’s face it, calling this new subatomic particle the “god particle” is a smack in the face for anyone who happens to believe in whatever God he does.
It’s not religion that poisons – it is people who stand firm in fallacy of thought. It is intolerance and closed minded small people who insist that they are right no matter what. Again, both sides have those.
My bottom line is this – both sides have been wrong in the past
July 4, 2012
Stacy Stutz Are you saying faith waits to be proven wrong? It’s confusing the way you wrote the sentence because I can read it two different ways.
We probably agree and are just getting confused by communication. It’s my position that faith cannot be proven wrong, they don’t want to be proven wrong. It goes beyond just blind faith. It’s more like offensive and defensive faith motivated by preventing any sort of discovery that will cause less people to join their religion.
Scientists don’t like to be proven wrong as a natural immediate emotion, but in a way they prefer to be proven wrong because it’s worse to be wrong and think you’re right.
Have non-religious scientists tortured other scientists because they had a compelling argument contrary to their own? It’s a disservice to science to compare it to religion for any reason other than to argue that they shouldn’t be compared.
Both sides have been wrong? That is an insult to science.
July 4, 2012
Jonathan Langdale I am staying that faith does not mean closing your mind to truth or being just plain stupid.
I will not argue that the many of those who have faith in religion have closed minds when it comes to science. But, the same holds true of some scientists – I’m not talking about scientist having an open mind when it comes to religion but that there are some who because of religion loathe to admit they could have been wrong.
July 4, 2012
I chose this title for a reason. the idea of the contradiction comes from what I see as the deepest misunderstanding about science, which is the idea that science is about certainty.
Science is not abut certainty. It’s about understanding the world with the knowledge with have from the past and present. Religion and faith are not about questioning what is doctrine.
As a scientist, I know that I don’t know everything. Most of my colleagues will say the same. However, when I image a prostate and say that it has cancer, I don’t believe that it has cancer. I know it does. How do I know? Because we validate everything we do. We ask our peers, “did I make a mistake?”. In religion that is called heresy. Because I don’t know everything, does not make what I do know, fall into question. The scientific method is about refining what people have reported in the past with the latest information and ideas. When is the last time any religion has said, you know what we got it wrong?
July 4, 2012
Stacy Stutz So far, faith has been defined by “closing your mind to truth or being just plain stupid.” That doesn’t mean this holds in every single case of someone having a faith in something. But on average, this what history has shown us.
July 4, 2012
Chad Haney The Catholic church has said they got things wrong, things like dead babies being in limbo or not. But what is interesting here is that they still don’t know that they’re wrong or right. They’re correcting themselves in a way that is still equally ignorant. Which is why I agree with you, but it’s an interesting con to try to make it look like perhaps the church corrects itself.
July 4, 2012
The added and obvious danger to faith is that the resistance to truth/facts (being wrong) extends to other things, like child rape. These are only the things we know of. Imagine all the other crimes that have been known to the church and overlooked or concealed, preventing criminal prosecution, based on theological excuses?
July 4, 2012
At least I have to applaud that the dialog has been civilized so far. I’ve seen both side resort to either name calling or cursing.
July 4, 2012
Chad Haney but this article is not about what science can prove with absolute certainty – this is about the wonderful “what if’s”
Religious history is full of, “we got it wrong” and lately, the biggest swing is away from doctrine and dogma to fundamentalism. There would be only one Christian Church if all Christians thought the Catholics had it right…the crusades are another example of, “we got it wrong.”
Jonathan Langdale And what of the crimes against humanity in the name of science?
Again, I can not hold both sides blameless.
Chad Haney it seems I’m the only one who sees both sides… lol and my views on this are not what you would call conventional 😉
July 4, 2012
I’m off to enjoy a family cookout and fireworks afterwards.
Jonathan Langdale I missed your comment about what historically has been true about faith. Just because it has been true in the past does not mean it must be true of the future.
July 4, 2012
Stacy Stutz wrote: “…but the truth is some scientists are just as guilty.”
You’re still confusing science and scientists. Scientists are just humans and will make mistakes. Science is something else. Religion is so comprehensively stupid as the means of explaining anything in this universe that it’s a joke. _Science_ on its worst day is still a bzillion times better than any religion ever will be. The religulous are those who deny science because of their fairy tale gods. They’re deluded. Some scientists are religious too; and they too are deluded. You’re making all kinds of category errors here.
Stacy Stutz wrote: “They (on both sides) are also the squeaky wheels and get the most “air time” Let’s face it, calling this new subatomic particle the “god particle” is a smack in the face for anyone who happens to believe in whatever God he does.”
And the media plays no role in this, right? HAH! BTW: I know lots of theists who find nothing wrong with calling the Higgs the “god particle.” Those who find it a slap in the face are the religulous (notice the spelling), and they deserve everyone’s derision.
Stacy Stutz wrote: “It’s not religion that poisons – it is people who stand firm in fallacy of thought. It is intolerance and closed minded small people who insist that they are right no matter what. Again, both sides have those.”
No, no. Religion poisons. Period. Every decent theist I know is not “religious.” You’re also confusing the intolerance that scientists have for fairy tale religulous crap with unacceptable intolerance. Are you tolerant of murderers? Well, that’s what religion does. It puts on in a frame of mind that allows all manner of obscenities to be committed. Science doesn’t do that.
Stacy Stutz wrote: “My bottom line is this – both sides have been wrong in the past.”
Which 2 sides? There’s way more than 2 sides here. You’ve described theists, atheists, scientists, the religious, the religulous, the deluded, the ignorant, and I’m sure a few more. You cannot confuse these categories and have a meaningful discussion.
July 4, 2012
Stacy Stutz wrote: “…an open mind when it comes to religion….”
Huh? Why? Have you bothered to read any of the so-called holy books of these religions? The good bits (e.g. the golden rule, etc.) had existed for centuries or millennia before they appeared in the bible/quran/whatever. The bad bits are sick and disgusting. Those books are part plagiarized, part horror novel. Why would any rational person keep an open mind to things like that?
July 4, 2012
Stacy Stutz wrote: “Religious history is full of, “we got it wrong” and lately, the biggest swing is away from doctrine and dogma to fundamentalism.”
Religion is dogma. It has to be, because there’s absolutely no evidence for any of it. Once it loses it’s dogmatic perspective, it’s nothing – it’s Deepak Chopra.
July 4, 2012
Stacy Stutz wrote: “Just because it [historical truth about faith] has been true in the past does not mean it must be true of the future.”
Example please. And include your definition of “truth.”
July 4, 2012
I think it’s getting confusing as Filippo Salustri said. I don’t think Carlo Rovelli is talking about the extremes/zealots. I think he is trying to reintroduce skills learned from philosophy into science but he isn’t saying throw out everything science has every said. It’s hard to use logic in an argument when the premise is either wrong or the debaters cannot agree on the premises.
July 4, 2012
And we must also remember that there’s big chunks of philosophy that are rather useless, given scientific advances. Philosophy can be useful, but like any tool, it can completely screw things up if not used appropriately.
July 5, 2012
Well, Chad Haney I’m done. I was all for an open minded discussion for this but it is not to be. Filippo Salustri comments are bordering on insulting and I am not going to play that game.
I respect that all people have a right to his or her belief system even if it is not my own – too bad that is not reciprocated.
July 5, 2012
Stacy Stutz I hope you at least found the article interesting. There will be other posts to share/discuss. Hope you had a nice holiday.
July 5, 2012
Stacy Stutz wrote that my comments “…are bordering on insulting.”
How so? Insulting to you?
July 5, 2012
I’m not playing, Filippo Salustri your contempt for other people’s beliefs is clear. The insult doesn’t need to be personal for me – I strongly believe that each person has his own right to believe what he wish even if I don’t agree with them.
I did, Chad Haney and I am truly impressed by Carlo Rovelli – the world needs more scientists like him.
July 5, 2012
It is a pity that most scientists don’t know anything about philosophy of science.
July 5, 2012
Stacy Stutz So if someone believes it’s right to bugger a child, then you would support their belief?
July 5, 2012
Pascal Wallisch I took a philosophy class as an undergrad. You’d be surprised how many students didn’t listen to the instructions of the prof about what an argument is and that as long as you agree on the premise, you can’t argue that the premise is wrong. I also took a course on medical history that was fascinating and had a interesting blend of philosophy. I wish more students wouldn’t complain about taking courses outside of their major. It really does make you more well rounded when you take courses like medical history or jazz appreciation.
July 5, 2012
Chad Haney Having been on both sides of the table in this regard, I couldn’t agree more. The scary thing is that all these people are out there, having no idea what they are doing.
July 5, 2012
Filippo Salustri *that* is exactly the attitude I am talking about. You can tag my name all night long but you shall not draw me into a debate of this type.
July 5, 2012
Maybe we call it a night, on this topic.
July 5, 2012
I note – with regret – that times have changed…
https://plus.google.com/100279438294886290330/posts/2FKon43Cn2T
July 5, 2012
Stacy Stutz Whatever.