Americans have little doubt about the scientific evidence that smoking can cause cancer. However, many Americans still question some of the basic concepts of modern science. AP-GfK poll*
As faith in a supreme being rises, confidence in the Big Bang, climate change and the age of the Earth decline, according to the poll.
"Views on science may be tied to what people see with their own eyes. The closer an issue is to their own bodies, and the less complicated, the easier it is for people to believe." John Staudenmaier
"Science, in its really pure form, is just telling you what the state of the world is. The more in-tune with reality your beliefs are, the more you are in a position to make a wise decision. Ignorance of science could also prove to be dangerous - parents' reluctance towards vaccines can harm others by spreading disease. Science is not meant to dictate policy. Rather, it is used to tell others what the state of the world is, and how officials respond to that is a statement of values." Daniel T. Willingham
"It is enormously distressing that science, which is our most powerful means for gaining insight into the world, insight into truth, is so mistrusted by so many people. Understanding scientific ideas is not just academic, it's essential to a vital democracy. Issues like climate change or nanoscience or genetically modified foods, are scientific at their core." Brian Greene
"Some people may not believe in science because it draws on evidence that they don't experience in their everyday lives. Everyone draws conclusions about the world around them - scientists and non-scientists alike - but non-scientists base those conclusions on much weaker evidence: a single observation, a gut feeling, hearsay from others. When those 'homespun' conclusions contradict the conclusions of science, it's difficult to recognize that they rest on much flimsier grounds." Andrew Shtulman
"Science ignorance is pervasive in our society, and these attitudes are reinforced when some of our leaders are openly antagonistic to established facts." Randy Schekman
Distinguished British Humanist Association supporter & physical chemist emeritus Prof. Peter Atkins discusses his review of Michael Behes' book 'Darwins Black Box' with Roger Bingham.
Roger Bingham quotes Atkins review 'With hard work and even the possibility of progress dismissed, Dr Behe waves his magic wand, discards the scientific method, and launches into his philosopher's stone of universal explanation: it was all designed. Presenting this silly, lazy, ignorant, and intellectually abominable view -- essentially discarding reason and invoking that first resort of the intellectually challenged (that is, God) -- he present what he thinks is the most wondrous of theories, that the only way of achieving complexity is by design. There we see Dr. Behe dangling from his petard, proclaiming his "science" of intelligent design, while not troubling to seek the regulation of that awesome monitor of scientific enterprise, peer review.'
Peter Atkins says 'Intelligent design is a scientific abomination [...] it is a representation of intellectual laziness driven by the desire to turn as many other countries as possible into Theocracies [...] intelligent design is so alien to the scientific spirit [...] science is hard work, unlike the intelligent designers, scientists aren't sliding down hills on tabogans, they are climbing mountain peaks.'
Peter Atkins answers the Templeton Organisation question 'Does the Universe have a purpose?'
"No. In the absence of evidence, the only reason to suppose that it does is sentimental wishful thinking and sentimental wishful thinking, which underlies all religion, is an unreliable tool for the discovery of truth of any kind.
The extension of analogies is another tool that accompanies wishful thinking in the toolboxes of the credulous. That an intricate mechanism, such as an engine or even a spoon, is commonly associated with a purpose cannot be taken to be evidence that the universe as a whole is associated with a purpose, any more than the existence of a cheetah implies that it has been designed with a purpose in mind. Cheetahs have evolved by the bloody, directionless, unguided processes of evolution: they have not been provided for the purpose of killing antelopes.
Similarly, the universe has evolved over its 14 billion years of current existence by the directionless, unguided processes that are manifestations of the working out of physical laws: it has not been made for the purpose of providing platforms to enable cheetahs to stalk their prey or humans to generate great art or to entertain delusions. That we do not yet understand anything about the inception of the universe should not mean that we need to ascribe to its inception a supernatural cause, a creator, and therefore to associate with that creator's inscrutable mind a purpose, whether it be divine, malign, or even whimsically capricious.
Theologians typically focus on questions that they have invented for their own puzzlement. Some theologians are perplexed by the nature of life after death, a notion they have invented without a scrap of evidence.
Some are mystified by the existence of evil in a world created by an infinitely loving God, another notion that theologians have invented but which dissolves into nothing once it is realized that there is no God. The question of cosmic purpose is likewise an invented notion, wholly without evidential foundation, and equally dismissible as patently absurd.
We should not regard as great the questions that have been invented solely for the sake of eliciting puzzlement.
I regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. It hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless. To project onto it our human-inspired notion of purpose would, to my mind, sully and diminish it."
Does the Universe have a purpose? No! says Peter Atkins ... a lot of theology is grappling with phantoms. Theologians have invented this almost self consistent subject which has no contact with physical reality and invent questions that they taunt humanity with. eg 'why has the universe got a purpose?' or 'Why does theodicy explain the problem of evil?' ... I could propose that there is a belt of planets between Mars and Earth which has no effect on the orbits of the known planets - great for after dinner gossip but not for serious consideration'.
This is the draft of the first chapter of a book sent to Stephen Law to make comments on. Add YOUR comments here on Stephen Laws' blogspot. Please remember to say you heard about this request for comments via Humanists4Science.
What are science and reason?
Humanists expound the virtues of science and reason. But what are science and reason? And we should we think it wise to rely on them?
By science, I shall mean that approach to finding out about reality based on the scientific method. This is a method that was fully developed only a few hundred years ago. Science, as I’ll use the term here, is a comparatively recent invention, its development owing a great deal to 16th and 17th Century thinkers such as the philosopher Francis Bacon(1561-1626).
So what is the scientific method? Here’s a rough sketch. Scientists collect data through observation and experiment. They formulate hypotheses and broader theories about the nature of reality to account for what they observe. Crucially, they then test their theories. Scientists derive from their theories predictions that can be independently checked by observation.
I was prompted by Brian Cox twitter profile @ProfBrianCox to investigate Positivism - wikipedia.
I've been mulling over Scientism - wikipedia for some time, especially since I organised for Prof. Alex Rosenberg - wikipedia to talk to Atheism UK about his book 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions'. Alex's talk on Youtube was recorded for Atheism UK by Mark Embleton at Conway Hall in London on 25th February 2012.
video source - play until 8:59PM Thu, 17 Nov 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tw1tl/The_End_of_God_A_Horizon_Guide_to_Science_and_Religion/
First Broadcast September 2010: historian Dr Thomas Dixon explores the troubled relationship between religion and science. From the creationists of America to the physicists of the Large Hadron Collider, he traces the expansion of scientific knowledge and asks whether there is still room for god in the modern world.
Sources of Knowledge: The Scientific Method v Revelation @ 5:00 Galileo saw moons circling Jupiter - the earth rotates the sun - Heliocentricity of Nicolaus Copernicus& Johannes Kepleris right. Heliocentrism is opposed to geocentrism(Earth at centre).Church thought that bible supported geocentrism - convicted Galileo of heresy.
@ 5:34 Who owns knowledge. What makes one source of knowledge more reliable than another? The scientific method uses observations and logic to produce hypotheses and predictions which are tested over and over again comparing it the evidence then refining hypothesis. @ 7: 29 Repeatability, accuracy, rigour and relevance is at the heart of the scientific method - not foolproof but in last 400 years has uncovered fundamentals of our world. @ 8:30 The religious claim to get knowledge through revelation - direct communication from God.
Creationism v Evolution @ 15: 40 Creationism was taught in American schools and Evolution teaching was banned from 1925 (Scopes trial) until 1987 when the highest court in America ruled that creationism was unconstitutional violating separation of church and state - Creationism was banned from the science curriculum.
@ 16:02 for scientists ancient religious texts are not sources of knowledge about the natural world and to treat them as if they are is absurd. There is no room for biblical creationism in modern science.
@ Creationist & Biochemist Michael Behe claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex, could not have evolved and must have designed in its complete form, by an intelligent designer. This idea was refuted by Kenneth Miller - found examples of simpler flagellum which worked.
@ 20:00 in 2006 Dover court trial ruled that teaching Intelligent Design was unconstitutional, unscientific, was a religious theory; banned from biology classes in public schools
@25: 20. The proposition that an intelligent designer could have created life was not scientific.
The Sensed Presence - why our brains are god receptors
@35:00 Using the controversial 'god helmet' Michael Persinger suggests that the 'sensed presence' (ie feeling the presence of something bigger than oneself) could be stimulated by activating the right hemisphere temporal lobe. However the helmet could not give a religious experience to Richard Dawkins!
@39:00 in meditation blood flow (red) in the parietal lobes reduces - our sense of time and place is reduced with a loss of sense of self. People who meditate and pray have same brain chemistry effects.
During meditation...
blood flowing to parietal lobes is reduced
How did our Universe start?
@44:00 god is being pushed into smaller and smaller crevices.
@49:00 the Higgs Particle if found at LHC may explain the 75% of the universe is Dark Energy
@51:00 gravity strength is just right. Paul Davies (Goldilocks Enigma) says the universe is a 'put up job'. Some have seen the sheer improbability of our existence as evidence of a higher being but Stephen Hawking disagrees. Their may be an infinite number of (multiple) universes or multiverses. But if multiverses cannot be tested for, is science and religion so different after all? Why does anything exist at all? Why do humans finds ourselves on this Earth? And whats it all for?
Will the idea of God ever go away?
@56:00 Thomas Dixon asks: When scientists have a total understanding of our universe (scientism) will the idea of gods go away? TD says probably not because science can not give something that religions offer - meaning and purpose to our lives. Religion has extreme tenacity (a digression: Richard Dawkins interviewed by Jeremy Paxman about The God Delusion). Whether or not God exists it seems we find it very easy to believe in him, because the brain has evolved to believe in the god hypothesis.
In the British Science Association, June 2011 issue of 'People & Science', Mark Stevenson argues for intolerance of pseudoscience citing John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Advisor, remarks '‘We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] antihomosexuality... We are not – and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this – grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method.’ (source: bengoldacre blog).
'You don’t have to be gay to care that society enshrines equal rights regardless of sexuality, and you don’t have to do science to be concerned that our society is evidence-based.'
KEVIN KELLY Editor-At-Large, Wired; Author, What Technology Wants
The Virtues of Negative Results
We can learn nearly as much from an experiment that does not work as from one that does. Failure is not something to be avoided but rather something to be cultivated. That's a lesson from science that benefits not only laboratory research, but design, sport, engineering, art, entrepreneurship, and even daily life itself.
All creative avenues yield the maximum when failures are embraced. A great graphic designer will generate lots of ideas knowing that most will be aborted. A great dancer realizes most new moves will not succeed. Ditto for any architect, electrical engineer, sculptor, marathoner, startup maven, or microbiologist.
What is science, after all, but a way to learn from things that don't work rather than just those that do? What this tool suggests is that you should aim for success while being prepared to learn from a series of failures. More so, you should carefully but deliberately press your successful investigations or accomplishments to the point that they break, flop, stall, crash, or fail.
...
Science itself is learning how to better exploit negative results.
...
increasingly published negative results (which include experiments that succeed in showing no effects) are becoming another essential tool in the scientific method.
...
one way to troubleshoot a complicated device that is broken is to deliberately force negative results (temporary breaks) in its multiple functions in order to locate the actual disfunction.
...
the habit of embracing negative results is one of the most essential tricks to gaining success.
Edge says 'The term 'scientific' is to be understood in a broad sense as the most reliable way of gaining knowledge about anything, whether it be the human spirit, the role of great people in history, or the structure of DNA. A "scientific concept" may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or "in a phrase") but has broad application to understanding the world'
'We can tell stories about 'Scientific concepts that illuminate the world'.'
Humanists4Science (H4S) Mission is "To promote, within the humanist community, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society."
One way to promote scientific method & scientific concepts is ... by telling stories!
Claire L. Evans writes... Science communication is difficult.
'It can be crippled by the complexity of its own subject matter. It can be steeped in jargon, too dense for its readership, or, conversely, too simplistic to satisfy its critics in the scientific community. It can lack warmth, or be too paranoid about its empirical rigor to engage in the metaphoric flights -- the quick shifts from microcosm to macrocosm -- that cue readers to an emotional engagement in any subject. The problem may lie in an inescapable tautology: to fully understand a scientific, taxonomic, objective conception of the natural world is to be so steeped in scientific idiom that poetics become impossible.'
Claire Evans continues ... 'And yet, there are those who are capable of communicating the invisible phenomena of science to the public. These people are essentially bilingual. The Sagans, the deGrasse Tysons, the E.O Wilsons; Angier, Attenborough, Carson and Greene; the radio producers, writers, filmmakers, documentarians, and public speakers; these are our human bridges, our storytellers, fluent in both big and small. It's a specific skill, to be a gifted science communicator -- that rare person who can straddle two divergent worlds without slipping into the void between the so-called "Two Cultures," someone with hard facts in their mind and literary gems in their rhetoric.
They must accomplish the humanization of abstract ideas without pandering, make science poetry without kitsch. Even at their best, they can be silly -- think of Carl Sagan, in his burgundy turtleneck, proclaiming, "in order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." It may seem absurd to draw such a huge subject down to Earth in such a literal way, but what Sagan taps into is the necessity of these seemingly silly flourishes.'
'See, science is big. It's driven by the desire to understand everything! The immensity of such a project necessitates that science be undertaken not by one group of men and women in one time, but all men and women for all time.'
'The final goal always eludes us: to understand this, we must first understand this, but to understand that, we must understand this, ad infinitum. Scientific knowledge is won by climbing the shoulders of giants; but these giants are a never-ending stack of babushka dolls. In fact, the very notion of there being a final point in science has become so abstract as to be almost irrelevant; the more we know, the more we know that we do not know, and the end of the game is nowhere to be seen. And, perhaps, there is no end game.'
'To a scientist, this endless narrative satisfies. The balance of properties and theories that define the natural world, the physical Universe, or the underpinnings of mathematical reality are elegant and stirring; knowledge, and the search for more of it, is a raison d'être. For those of us not wired the same way, the greater narrative of science can be overwhelming, if not inscrutable. We need stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. We need things to relate to, objects to hold onto, characters to laugh and cry with. We need to synthesize abstract ideas through allegories, metaphors, and images.'
'Popular science communication is defined by such literary gestures.'
'For years, students of astronomy struggled with the concept of an expanding universe without a center (a notion which violently bucks against reason). Cosmologists, however, came up with an image -- a metaphor -- which lightens the load: imagine that the universe is an expanding balloon, and the stars and objects in space are dots drawn on the surface of this balloon.'
Claire L. Evans continues 'From any one star's vantage point, all the other objects in space are moving away from it, but without any perceivable pattern. The more distant points would appear to be moving faster. Apart from being a devastatingly simple image that conveys more information that entire astronomy textbooks, it's also an elegant metaphor. It accomplishes the same things as the most successful of literary metaphors: a world of feeling and information, the very chaos of physical reality, in one image. It translates profound abstraction (the universe) into something we can imagine holding in our hands (a balloon).'
'Good science communication moulds complex ideas into human-scale stories. It turns a discussion of the cosmos' impossible scale into inflating balloons. Or into Sagan, sitting at his dinner table like a medieval king in corduroy, a steaming apple pie at the ready.'
WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?
The term 'scientific"is to be understood in a broad sense as the most reliable way of gaining knowledge about anything, whether it be the human spirit, the role of great people in history, or the structure of DNA. A "scientific concept" may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or "in a phrase") but has broad application to understanding the world.
[Thanks to Steven Pinker for suggesting this year's Edge Question]
That's the question asked by this year by Edge. With 159 answers to the question, I set out to find which scientific concepts were most useful to me. Here is my pick which are mostly related to scientific method. Clicking the link opens the article (and asks if you want to print).
People tend to recognise a pattern where a pattern doesn't really exist. Recognising that this Apophenia occurs often, could help us to overcome our bias to recognise patterns where they don't exist.
"We humans are terrible at dealing with probability. We are not merely bad at it, but seem hardwired to be incompetent, in spite of the fact that we encounter innumerable circumstances every day which depend on accurate probabilistic calculations for our wellbeing. "
The concept of cause and effect is better understood as the flow of information between two connected events, from the earlier event to the later one. Saying "A causes B" sounds precise, but is actually very vague. I would specify much more by saying "with the information that A has happened, I can compute with almost total confidence* that B will happen." The latter rules out the possibility that other factors could prevent B even if A does happen, but allows the possibility that other factors could cause B even if A doesn't happen.
@Think Week, Oxford, Chris Street, David McKnight and Andy Pepperdine from Humanists4Science and Richard Green from AtheistsUK attended this talk on 24th February 2011. And had a great discussion down the pub after the meeting!
Part 1
Peter Atkins
There are 3 ways of acquiring knowledge:-
1) Refer to ancient texts - Religion - theologicians, obfuscate the world
2) Think about what the world should be like - Philosophy - which leads us nowhere, eg the Greeks reflected on what the world should be like
3) Science: do what people like Galileo did - goes out and applies the scientific method - scientists illuminate the world
The scientific method - go out, look at things and then talk about it. But science is not just amiablly wandering through the universe and then chatting to people whoever goes by. Science is about doing controlled experiments, isolating what is there, identifying the deep nature of what is operating, talking about it involves peer review, plus setting your discovering in a network of that which is already known; a network of ideas.
You cannot have an idea clashing in one area of science with another areas of science. The reason for confidence in the scientific endeavour is because ideas arise in many springs and where they mingle they dont conflict eg to understand cosmology you have to draw on knowledge of elementary particles.
Science is not complete, but is developing. Science progresses and understanding deepens.
Can science deal with all the great questions of existence? Science can deal with all the serious questions that have troubled mankind for millenia. My view is that science is without bound. To argue that case you have to distinguish real questions from false questions. Empty questions are invented by theologicians and philosphers eg what is the purpose of the universe. There is no evidence for any purpose of the universe so there is no need to waste time thinking about it. Real questions are the origin of universe and the long term fate of the universe, and what goes on between. Science can answer every one of the real questions. Real questions include:-
how did the universe come into being without intervention - scientist have not cracked this yet but much progress over the last 150 yrs compared to theology/philosophy over last 10,000 years. That is the power of science. How can nothing produce something without intervention. Only a pessimist would think this cannot be answered.
Origin of biosphere... real results in the last 200 years, evolution and natural selection is the solution.
the problem of the inception of life remains .. how did the inorganic become organic. Scientists have many ideas - they do not assert what happens. Science cautiously identifies what might have happened.
Nature of consciousness is another problem that science has not solved but is grappling with. Philosopher might say that science cannot illuminate the subjective. Theories of consciousness will be simulations and neuroscientists understand systems using fMRI, computers emulate aspects of consciousness to understand eg to understand why people resort to religious belief.
In summary, scientists are optimists. They attack problems because they are optimistic they will solve the problems. The driving force of science is optimism.
Philosophers are pessimists and say 'you cannot go there!'
Stephen Law
I'm a great admirer of empirical sciences [Empiricism - Wikipedia]. Empirical science is the most important tool, possibly the only tool that really works for understanding the world around us. Even though some questions cannot be answered by science this does not mean that these questions are off limits to science. I suspect a majority of scientists reject scientism - which says that every decent question can be answered by science.
Part 2
Stephen Law
Why is there something rather than nothing. Why was there a Big Bang rather than no Big Bang. When scientists explain things they use laws to explain things eg why did the water freeze in the pipes. Certain deep laws cannot be answered by science necessarily? In principle is it impossible to answer this question?
Can science answer moral questions? Ought or ought not to do something. David Hume says science deals with 'is' questions. Science cannot explain 'ought' questions or facts. eg why is it wrong. You cannot get an 'ought' from an 'is'.
You can answer questions without doing empirical science
4 sided triangle. Just by thinking about it you know that it doesn't exist - its a conceptual problem.
Why is it that mirrors reverse Left to Right, not Top to Bottom. Its a conceptual problem, thinking things through, not a scientific problem.
The mind-body problem is a conceptual problem. Philosophers do conceptual engineering and clarification
Philosophy is good at spotting a bad argument, stop the philosophical flaws in a scientific argument.
Long before the scientific method of Francis Bacon, empirical based observations are useful eg is there a cat up your shirt. This is not the scientific method. Can be very effective. Can science refute what is 'behind the veil' - the supernatural. Claims about god do not need science - there is a conceptual problems of god - non-temporal agency. Look out of the window - a lot of good stuff, Evil God Hypothesis is not true, cannot be true because of all the good things going on. Ain't no good god because too much good stuff. You don't need science to arrive at this conclusion.
Peter Atkins
SL says science cannot approach questions like the origin of the universe - that's a pessimistic view. Well the approach to use is physics, cosmology, maths. For question about morality you can attack this question through ethology, psychology, evolution, anthropology. It is pessimistic to say you cannot attack the morality question. Philosophers are pessimists.
Part 3
Stephen Law
As David Hume said, you cannot get logically an 'ought' out of an 'is'. (video 3/1:49) Human flourishing is important. The 'is' facts are neutral. QED. Peter Atkins
Looking at our evolutionary / ethological / social / anthropological history - that is all you need to distinguish an 'is' from an 'ought'. Its survival ultimately. A collection of 'is' facts will ultimately lead to an 'ought' decision (5:22).
Part 4
Part 4
Can something come from nothing? An Interesting Nothing.
Part 5
Part 5
David McKnight: Moral questions are 'aught' questions. Should we be talking about 'aught' questions. Are you trying to tell people what we 'aught' to do. Provide the facts.
Steven Law: 'aught' is not a religious term. Drifting into a incoherent position? Conceptual distinction between authoritarians and liberals (make up your own mind).
Peter Atkins: Consciousness - cannot be modelled or emulated at moment. Peter Atkins: Moral and Political philosophers are interesting & important - dealing with emergent problems of society. Where philosophy is NOT useful is in exposing the workings of the universe.
Role of mathematics.
Part 6
Richard Dawkins, Vice President BHA was in the audience.
Part 6: Questions from the audience. I asked a question: Here is the verbatim transcription. My emphasis in brackets:-
1'35": Chris Street (anonymously)'This is a question for both our speakers, Peter Atkins and Steven Law, who are both distinguished supporters of the British Humanist Association (BHA). Has science a role to play in humanistic philosophy and do you agree that the BHA strategy does not include science? 1' 50": Peter Atkins 'Stephen this is your question'. 1' 55": Stephen Law 'Sorry just say the last bit again' 2'00": Chris Street 'Do you agree that the BHA strategy does not include any reference to science? 2'04": Stephen Law (unclearly) 'Strategy? (confused) Would it be right if the strategy did include science? Well give me an example.
2'10": Chris Street ' I have in mind that the BHA strategy claims that reason has a part in understanding the world.
2'21": Stephen Law 'Right. That is (reason) is a big umbrella word'. My guess is that reason is understood to encompass science, that would be how I would read that. If you feel that it (science) really should have its own word in there explicitly, well, I have a little bit of sympathy with that actually, yeh.
2'40": Chris Street (agrees)
2'42": Stephen Law 'But the suggestion that the BHA is a closet anti-science organisation, um, doesn't rate philosophy and doesn't rate science, I'm absolutely sure that that is not true. I'm sure you don't think that either?
2'56": Chris Street 'I don't' (I don't think BHA is anti-science or anti-philosophy).
But Peter Atkins misses the chance to point out a humanist meme: Whilst the universe has no purpose, we, within it, can decide our own meaning & purpose to life (not relying on a holy book to tell us). Peter Atkins needs to brush up on his Humanism (he is a BHA Distinguished Supporter)
How about this for a strapline for Humanists4Science? 'Is there nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate?'
Reference: Atkins, P., On Being, 2011, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 104 (available from Amazon.co.uk):-
'My own faith, my scientific faith, is that there is nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate'
Oxford scientist Prof Peter Atkins and philosopher Mary Midgley discuss whether there is anything more than facts, facts and more facts.
my synopsis of interview by John Humphrys, Today. All quotes from Peter Atkins, except where indicated. My additions in [ ].
philosophers have tried for millennia, to answer the great questions e.g. where did we come from?, why are we here?. Should philosophers bother ... just leave it to the scientists who deal in facts? That's the argument of Peter Atkins book 'On Being'. (JH)
3 ways of getting knowledge about the world:
1.refer to holy books [religion]
2.think about what it should be [philosophy]
3.go out and see what it's like [science] - favoured by Peter Atkins - that's what science is all about
Myths that emphasise the importance of these great questions [religion], have given way to truth [revealed by science]
Myths such as? (JH)
myths about afterlife and creation of universe have given way (but not completely) to scientific investigation, not completely but as an optimist, shows the way to the future understanding of the world
As a scientist can you answer: 'why are we here?' (JH)
Yes I could. It's just by accident! We just tumbled into being, the universe somehow came into existence. We don't know that, but its not outside the reach of science to consider the grand question: what is the origin of the universe? Science in due course will come up with verifiable theories about how universe came into being .... it was inevitable that we and our brains would tumble into existence [evolution by natural selection]
this is not a scientific view - a philosophical view - not science! (MM)
imperialistic view (MM)
can physical science give us knowledge about everything eg 'history'? No! (MM)
for a logical or maths question - ask a scientist (MM)
most of the questions we ask are about the working of human life not about physical detail (MM)
philosophical obfustification!
science goes out to answer the really deep questions about existence
whereas a philosopher, typically a pessimist, is like a traffic warden...
Are you an optimist, as a scientist, with all the dire warnings about how the world & universe could end? (JH)
We can have fun before the world expires! Part of the fun is understanding the nature of the world, how it works, how it came into existence!
the really deep questions that philosophers try to answer is 'the meaning of human life' and putting together the elements of the human life so they make sense. These are more important than the causal nature of the universe. (MM)
science identifies the really deep questions of existence, philosophers typically are pessimists (like traffic wardens), philosophers obfuscate, philosophers verge on edge of being theologians!
Science identifies deep questions
there is no meaning of human life (PA) 4m40s
Philosophers focus on the non-questions like the meaning of life. What is the meaning of human life? This is a philosophical non-question! There is no meaning to life!
And you're an optimist? What a bleak assessment! (JH)
Yes, being bleak is part of the pleasure of being alive!
MM get us out of that one! (JH)
This talk about accident is rubbish! You can talk about a car accident but we can't talk about the whole thing being an accident, it's unintelligible. (MM)
it is much more understandable that the universe is an accident, the universe fell into existence somehow, rather than, for example, there being a creator who somehow nudged it into existence.
But you said "I think, not I can prove". Surely science should say more? (JH)
science does not rush into explanations, it edges towards answers in a very self confident authoritative way
humanity should be deeply proud that it stumbled upon a way [the scientific method] of discovering the truth about the universe
Mary Midgley, in less than 30 seconds tell us why we are here! (JH)
In my view, as expressed in crabsallover comment to an Atheism* article about the views of a Muslim woman, (the) 'scientific method' should be used to challenge (the) 'faith method' of religions. In the comments section of this article I said:-
I like your term the 'method of faith' but I prefer to shorten it to the 'faith method' and contrast it to the 'scientific method'. A good way to challenge the 'faith method' is with the 'scientific method'.
The scientific method has been, by and large, spectacularly successful in the last couple of centuries and is the basis on which science, and our knowledge of the world, has progressed.
On evolution, humans are not animals but created by God.
Since Darwin, the scientific method has shown that Evolution by Natural Selection is how all life (including man!) has evolved.
The overwhelming impression I had from our conversation was that there seemed to be no conception of evidence and substantiation required for truth.
That is why we should be extolling science and the scientific method as the best ways of discovering about the world, whilst exposing the flaws in the 'faith method'.
The beliefs were held because that is what she had been exposed to, and they were, to her, unquestionably correct and those who had different beliefs were clearly wrong. And here we come to the fundamental flaw in the method of Faith, that it is belief decoupled from reality, which creates an environment where people can believe anything.
Well said! And faith can be highly emotive, strongly held and people can become offended (or even violent) when there faith is questioned. Which is one reason why the 'faith method' is a successful strategy to propagate religions. Do ALL 'successfully' propagated religions rely on the 'faith method'?
Although, some of her beliefs could be regarded as prejudicial, luckily they didn’t seem to be that dangerous. But, and here is the danger of Faith, what happens if people who just accept what they are told, by those who they regard as authorities on the matter, are exposed to beliefs of a more extremist nature? The more people rely on Faith the more likely they are to become fundamentalists, and possibly a threat to others.
That is why it is vital that we challenge religious beliefs which use the 'faith method', with science which uses the 'scientific method'.
* Atheism is Britain’s only distinctively atheist organization. Atheism challenges religious faith. Atheism’s ultimate goal is the end of faith and of religion, the social manifestation of faith.
Science can be seen as a body of facts, a set of theories or a set of methods. In our view it is primarily a set of methods. These methods are both technical, eg controlled experiments, and social, eg peer review, and there is no definitive list.
Science is not, therefore, an area of study or even several such areas. You can do science in any area to which scientific methods can be applied including human behaviour and social dynamics. It’s true that studies of people present various distinctive difficulties – but so do astronomy and particle physics.
When thinking about methods in the natural sciences it’s easy to suppose that science requires controlled experiments but this is incorrect. Controlled experiments are impractical in studies of stellar, geological and biological evolution. In medicine some controlled experiments are unethical – that’s why we have ethics committees.
In his wonderful book Guns, Germs and Steel Jared Diamond showed how comparisons between societies and ecologies could be used to illuminate human history and prehistory. In this he applied scientific methods to history – he took a similar approach even more explicitly in Collapse.
Now Diamond has tackled the methodology question head-on. His new book, Natural experiments of history, was written with political scientist James Robinson, and looks at eight ‘natural experiments’, that is sets of historical episodes from which general conclusions can be drawn. In four, similar societies experienced different impacts, eg conquest, whilst in the others different societies experienced similar impacts. The book then compares the consequences in the various cases.
The specific results are interesting, of course, but the real importance of Diamond’s work is to show how scientific method can be applied to the unpromising material of human history.
