Dear Lord_Shandor, (I love that name!)
I appreciate your thoughts, and the great opportunity which you offer me
to clarify some common misconceptions about science and the mentality of
scientists. I marvel at why this anti-science sentiment seems so prevalent
in our supposedly enlightened society, and it points to the failure of scientists to
connect with the lay-person. Indeed, somewhere, we have failed in our educational
efforts, and some who are less-well-meaning have taken advantage of the
situation to push forward their own agendas. I'm grateful for this venue in this very
small corner of the universe to be able to clarify what science is really all about.
Now, I could easily write a whole book, and others have already done so
(e.g. Carl Sagan), rebutting your accusations against science and
scientists. In the limited amount of time I have, let me just offer my
response to your most biting remark ... that science is now the new
religion, and that scientists, the new priesthood.
Why this analogy completely fails is because religion is based on faith,
authority, and mystical revelation. Rather, science is based on
experimentation, rational thinking, and objectivity. Priests in religious
orders are ordained and accept the tenants of their faith with, well,
faith. Scientists are trained to accept no authority but Nature herself,
and if it sounds like we are "preaching", well, we are actually only
"sharing" what our experiments reveal. You can, with time and energy,
prove to yourself those things which are well understood in science. {Of
course, there are plenty of things which are not so well understood, and
we are studying these things now ... would you like to join in on the
effort?
} On the other hand, you can endlessly debate religious (and
other ideological) differences to no satisfying end.
A Jewish physicist may vehemently disagree with her Christian colleague
regarding the deity of Christ, but they will both heartily agree upon the
atomic hypothesis, relativistic quantum electrodynamics, and general
relativity. Why? Not because they've accepted these theories on faith.
But because these theories have been able to account for the workings of
the natural world to a precision of 15 decimal places. That doesn't mean
these theories are "truths" which will never be changed. Indeed, we
already know the weaknesses of our current paradigm and we are working
full speed to take the next step of discovering even deeper theories of
Nature. But our guide is the scientific method of hypothesis,
experimentation, verification, and prediction. And we can only take one
step at a time.
The cornerstone of science is the scientific method, specifically designed
to prevent us from fooling ourselves. Scientists strive to be completely
objective, and we accept only that which has been rigorously examined from
every possible angle. Indeed, in doing good science, the investigator
designs a "null hypothesis" which is specifically constructed to
demonstrate the opposite of the result she is trying to demonstrate, and
she works her very best to satisfy the null hypothesis. That is, the good
researcher is her very own worst devil's advocate, because she is
constantly trying to prevent herself from deceiving herself. The
researcher's own notions about the way the universe works is irrelevant
and should not enter into her interpretation of the results. And she takes
every precaution to remove her own prejudices from the process in order to
ensure as objective an analysis as possible. Only that which survives such
rigorous testing holds merit. Even then, what is discovered is not labeled
as "true" but merely "consistent" with the current hypothesis.
Then, she takes the next step and presents her results to be considered by
her colleagues in the peer-review process. She gives talks, submits
articles for publication, corresponds, consults with other investigators,
and their job is to vigorously challenge her findings. If the results
withstand their scrutiny and appear to hold some merit, they try to
reproduce her results, or to conduct other experiments which would support
or contradict her conclusions. THIS is good science, and the only way we
can build a consistent model of how things work. Believe me, good science
is a lot of hard work and involves an enormous amount of time, energy, and
careful thinking.
The scientific method is also self-correcting. Mistakes (intentional or
accidental) are quickly uncovered and exposed. The most beautiful,
elegant, appealing theory can overnight perish because it does not stand
up to experimental results (e.g. the early ether theory). Likewise,
sensational results of poorly conducted experiments which cannot be
independently verified by others need to be reexamined more critically
(e.g. cold fusion). And, outright fraud is criminally prosecuted (e.g. a
South Korean researcher's recent animal cloning work).
Believe me, researchers are tirelessly working on the problems you list:
cancer, energy-supply, human interaction/ability, and pollution. And
believe me, when someone or some team offers a validated answer to any of
these issues (and many more), and if their paradigms are completely
different than the prevailing ones, there will be a paradigm shift
overnight.
I look forward to our continued discussion, if you are willing. I wish
you the best, and I hope you will be able to wisely discern that which is
worthy of defending.
HF
P.S.
More validly, some scientists accuse other scientists that the
continuation of a particular line of investigation requires religious-like
devotion to it. For example, consider a recent discussion on the SETI
effort:
Of Faith and Facts: Is SETI a Religion?
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_religion_060601.html
