Science is not a cure-all, nor does it replace the need for religion, literature, art, and music. But, it is the greatest human instrument we have for thinking clearly.
The human brain is not well designed for perceiving truth for the sake of truth. Our eyes are not good light meters, and neither are our ears good sound meters. While one could effectively argue that our senses are sufficient for survival, they are prone to illusions and misperceptions.
Think about how easily impressed we are by magicians. All magic tricks have naturalistic explanations, but we are often left mystified and consequently entertained. Why? As we watch tricks being performed, we too easily focus on the wrong thing, such as a waving hand. Our brain tunes out routine moves, like the magician rubbing his or her nose. Magicians often force us to multitask, by excessive talking, and by having attractive assistants, fancy costumes, and elaborate sets.
The problem is that our tendencies to be fooled are NOT limited to magicians and their tricks.
Here are some reasons we are easily fooled:
1) We believe our senses deliver truth.
2) We believe the unexplained is evidence for the supernatural.
3) We dislike thinking critically about our favorite beliefs.
4) We are attracted to bold statements, rumors, and anecdotes.
5) We enjoy attaching deep significance to myths.
6) We like to attribute purpose to coincidence.
7) We love arguments from authority that stop thinking.
8) We are convinced that our judgment is superior to others.
Science gives us a mechanism for circumventing our inherent mental weaknesses. It requires us to record careful measurements. It requires us to verify those measurements with others. It encourages controlled experimentation by studying how independent variables affect dependent variables. It requires replication and extension. It encourages extended attempts to falsify hypotheses.
Science is not immune to error, but at least it has mechanisms for correcting errors. I am thinking of the fascinating report by Richard B. Hoover, PhD, from NASA. He recently has issued a report in an on-line science journal that that claims to have found (alien) fossilized microbes and 8 of 20 amino acids in carbonaceous meteor using an electron microscope (March, 2011, Journal of Cosmology, “Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites”). Such an extraordinary finding would have vast implications about the distribution of life in the universe. But, is it true? He has made such claims before (e.g., in 1997) that did not hold up very well. Did Hoover use proper control procedures? Can his study be replicated by independent labs? We will not know the answers to such questions, perhaps for years.
Science takes time. Unfortunately, we humans want our answers fast, even though quick answers are usually associated with a false economy. Science teaches us that slow and carefully thinking has a bigger payoff.
What is scientific truth? Scientific truths consist of those propositions about nature subjected to objective and systematic scrutiny (empirical observation, mathematical simulation, and/or experiment) that produce predictable results, time and time again.
Such truths now form a long list. Do we have the courage to sidestep our cognitive weaknesses and face the truths that confront us?
My answer is yes, but time will tell.
Copyright © 2011 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
11 comments:
"Do we have the courage to sidestep our cognitive weaknesses and face the truths that confront us?"
I think the first step is recognizing this weakness. We can then take steps to reduce and minimize the effects of our less than perfect sensory input and reasoning.
I'd also like to emphasize that not only are there limits to the reliability of our senses, but our brains have limits in synthesizing information. We are very very good at deceiving ourselves. Science has tools and processes in place to minimize our human limitations. Like you say, it's not perfect, but what else have we got?
Well said. Here are some of my own observations.
1) We believe our senses deliver truth.
- Even sensing the world correctly (meaning that we are not deceived by abnormal electrochemical processes) does not always lead to truth. I don't ridicule the geocentrists from generations long ago because any clear thinking person could see that the sun rises and falls (i.e., goes around the earth).
2) We believe the unexplained is evidence for the supernatural.
- aka god of the gaps. However, in the case of miracles science will never be able to provide an adequate explanation because it cannot grasp the celestial laws by which a miracle was carried out. I generally reject process theological explanations for miracles (i.e., miracles are merely natural (telestial) events carried out by natural laws).
3) We dislike thinking critically about our favorite beliefs.
- right, for fear of finding fault with them. I have found that, in the case of scientific beliefs, knowing my favorite theory's weaknesses strengthens my ability to defend the theory.
4) We are attracted to bold statements, rumors, and anecdotes.
- Sieg Heil!
5) We enjoy attaching deep significance to myths.
- Sometimes this is the only thing that keeps scholarship from getting boring. A bit of speculation is good for the soul ;)
6) We like to attribute purpose to coincidence.
- Not everything happens for a reason, although I see people thinking this way to make sense of tragedy. Sometimes things just happen.
7) We love arguments from authority that stop thinking.
- Not sure about this one - perhaps for people who don't want or don't have the time to study and think about an issue for themselves.
8) We are convinced that our judgment is superior to others.
- Pride.
Your post brought to memory a talk I attended from Bill Schopf last semester. He is the discoverer of cyanobacteria-like fossils in rock from 3.5bya, and is a main (de facto)proponent of the rapid ascension of simple multi-cellularity. It was an incredibly enjoyable talk, to a small group into the late evening. I remember being entertained and educated. I did come away somewhat with the feeling of having watched a magic show. This stuff is not always easy to parse.
raehdyohed:
J. William Schopf is a preeminent paleobiologist. I envy you for the lecture you attended by him.
Thomas Kuhn has described how scientific paradigms predispose us to see - and not see - in certain ways. This is another limiting factor that often is overcome only by "disruptive" science.
T.Taivod:
My counterargument is that humans can be functionally fixed in their thinking regardless of the area of expertise. Science is not unique in sometimes displaying this cognitive weakness. But, I would further argue that it is science more than any other field that stimulates its practitioners to break out of the fixed paradigms -- to be disruptive. To me, Kuhn does not account for the gradual accumulation of scientific knowledge that sometimes directly leads to punctuated events.
This isn't about me believing in the validity of diving rods is it? (written with shifty eyes)
*divining rods. I have no idea what diving rods are.
Shantel:
Your question is merely extrapolating from a coincidence. This essay came from an undergraduate lecture I recently delivered, nothing more.
S. Faux, you always hit a home run! Thanks for this. I've been watching that NASA finding closely. It has striking implications about life!
SteveP.:
You are one of my blogging heroes. Thanks for visiting and reading.
Post a Comment