Taking Science on Faith
is an op-ed piece in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
The apparent aim is to improve the dialog between the religious and science. I'm all for the aim, and Davies has impressive credentials, but
I don't agree with his major point.
He says that science has its own "faith-based belief system".
In particular: "All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way."
Well, yes, it is an assumption, but it isn't an article of faith - it is continually tested. In fact there are areas where assumption of order has failed and has been abandoned - Quantum Theory is the poster child here. There are other areas where microscopically one thinks one knows the mechanics, but sub-microscopically one knows they are affected by QM and macroscopically the region is in a chaotic state so that even if one knew the microscopic data to some reasonable accuracy, the subsequent dynamics would completely destroy the accuracy of microscopic knowledge within a few interactions/particle.
If all of a sudden things started working significantly differently . . . well, first, I expect we'd lose all life, so there wouldn't be any scientists to react, but if something changed sufficiently subtly so that scientists kept operating - well, inconsistencies would start showing up. People would start asking why. The assumption that everything was the same would be dropped, relaxed, modified (and yes, some would stick to the old assumptions as long as they could, but that is people who happen to be scientists, not science.) There has been a lot of discussion on how well that change in assumptions might happen, but those discussions involve the psychology of scientists, not the philosophy of science.
An area where science operates on faith to a much greater extent is the faith that fellow scientists are doing honest work. This also is not an article of faith and is also tested. This faith is not always justified and it is always disturbing when it is shown to fail. Fortunately the fact that the possibility of error is always considered helps discover such cases, but the overall system is more efficient the smaller the error rate - fraud pulls everyone down.
As Davies says, we assume there are laws that remain constant. But we don't blindly assume that. We check. We have only one light-cone to work with, but it probes time and space, and assumptions are continually checked. When inconsistencies show up, people scramble around to find new sets of assumptions, and at the frontier of knowledge there are often several candidates. We all recently beamed when the microwave background survey revealed a variation consistent with observed matter distribution and a reasonable theory of universe evolution. Now we hear of someone providing a local galaxy explanation of the microwave results - people will look at it, evaluate it, and state how they think it changes our understanding and why. We make many assumptions, but we always check that what we see is consistent with the assumptions.
Davies then complains that physicists don't try to explain the laws - the current set of assumptions. These assumptions are presented as consistent with the data collected, and no more justification is given. (Considerable effort is expended to try to reduce the free parameters, but that does not constitute either justification or explanation.) This is the place where he tries to connect the basis of science with the basis of religion and, IMO, falls on his face. Science and rationality do not try to obtain all knowledge. At one time it was hoped they could, but that was long ago. There are aspects of human existence that scientific knowledge can not address. Whether that region is best addressed by religious or secular efforts forms a vital topic for discussion - I endorse various participants listening to each other and searching for common ground and avoiding trivial differences. These discussions, like science, benefit from looking for and addressing inconsistencies. But as long as the conclusions are not testable, they do not constitute science.
Davies goes on to consider the "multiverse" - things might be pretty much the same around here, as far as we can see, but there might be other regions where things are quite different. He objects to this as "dodging the issue". It isn't dodging the issue. It is a concept. At the moment we have no idea of how to test it. Well, at one point there was an effort in particle physics to have the different concept of there being only one possible theory that would be self-consistent and fit the known physical data. I suppose that doesn't dodge the issue, but it is also a concept, and one that does not seem to fit.
The fact is that we are in a locality and do not, at the moment, have access to data outside that locality. Maybe some day we will. We have access to a much larger locality than those who came before us. It does not seem to me to dodge the issue when physicists conceive of existence far beyond the locality we know today.
from the end: "Paul Davies is the director of Beyond, a research center at Arizona State University, and the author of “Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life.”"
The apparent aim is to improve the dialog between the religious and science. I'm all for the aim, and Davies has impressive credentials, but
I don't agree with his major point.
He says that science has its own "faith-based belief system".
In particular: "All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way."
Well, yes, it is an assumption, but it isn't an article of faith - it is continually tested. In fact there are areas where assumption of order has failed and has been abandoned - Quantum Theory is the poster child here. There are other areas where microscopically one thinks one knows the mechanics, but sub-microscopically one knows they are affected by QM and macroscopically the region is in a chaotic state so that even if one knew the microscopic data to some reasonable accuracy, the subsequent dynamics would completely destroy the accuracy of microscopic knowledge within a few interactions/particle.
If all of a sudden things started working significantly differently . . . well, first, I expect we'd lose all life, so there wouldn't be any scientists to react, but if something changed sufficiently subtly so that scientists kept operating - well, inconsistencies would start showing up. People would start asking why. The assumption that everything was the same would be dropped, relaxed, modified (and yes, some would stick to the old assumptions as long as they could, but that is people who happen to be scientists, not science.) There has been a lot of discussion on how well that change in assumptions might happen, but those discussions involve the psychology of scientists, not the philosophy of science.
An area where science operates on faith to a much greater extent is the faith that fellow scientists are doing honest work. This also is not an article of faith and is also tested. This faith is not always justified and it is always disturbing when it is shown to fail. Fortunately the fact that the possibility of error is always considered helps discover such cases, but the overall system is more efficient the smaller the error rate - fraud pulls everyone down.
As Davies says, we assume there are laws that remain constant. But we don't blindly assume that. We check. We have only one light-cone to work with, but it probes time and space, and assumptions are continually checked. When inconsistencies show up, people scramble around to find new sets of assumptions, and at the frontier of knowledge there are often several candidates. We all recently beamed when the microwave background survey revealed a variation consistent with observed matter distribution and a reasonable theory of universe evolution. Now we hear of someone providing a local galaxy explanation of the microwave results - people will look at it, evaluate it, and state how they think it changes our understanding and why. We make many assumptions, but we always check that what we see is consistent with the assumptions.
Davies then complains that physicists don't try to explain the laws - the current set of assumptions. These assumptions are presented as consistent with the data collected, and no more justification is given. (Considerable effort is expended to try to reduce the free parameters, but that does not constitute either justification or explanation.) This is the place where he tries to connect the basis of science with the basis of religion and, IMO, falls on his face. Science and rationality do not try to obtain all knowledge. At one time it was hoped they could, but that was long ago. There are aspects of human existence that scientific knowledge can not address. Whether that region is best addressed by religious or secular efforts forms a vital topic for discussion - I endorse various participants listening to each other and searching for common ground and avoiding trivial differences. These discussions, like science, benefit from looking for and addressing inconsistencies. But as long as the conclusions are not testable, they do not constitute science.
Davies goes on to consider the "multiverse" - things might be pretty much the same around here, as far as we can see, but there might be other regions where things are quite different. He objects to this as "dodging the issue". It isn't dodging the issue. It is a concept. At the moment we have no idea of how to test it. Well, at one point there was an effort in particle physics to have the different concept of there being only one possible theory that would be self-consistent and fit the known physical data. I suppose that doesn't dodge the issue, but it is also a concept, and one that does not seem to fit.
The fact is that we are in a locality and do not, at the moment, have access to data outside that locality. Maybe some day we will. We have access to a much larger locality than those who came before us. It does not seem to me to dodge the issue when physicists conceive of existence far beyond the locality we know today.
from the end: "Paul Davies is the director of Beyond, a research center at Arizona State University, and the author of “Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life.”"