Welcome to round four of Atheist Digest.
In this series we're going to explore philosophy, science, theology, psychology, epistemology, and a whole slew of other silly elitist things. We're going to challenge each other to think, we're going to inadvertently insult some people, and hopefully we'll end the day battered, bruised, confused, but just a little more thoughtful and tolerant than before.
Previous diaries in this series:
Atheist Digest: Diary Series Introduction
Atheist Digest: Semantics
Atheist Digest Three - Belief
A detailed, in-depth discussion of a topic as complex as science and the methodology behind it, including a history of its development, is far beyond the scope of a single diary. For that reason, I have provided a list of links at the end of the diary, and a recommended reading list, for those inclined to dig further into what I consider a fascinating subject. And I will apologize, in advance, for racing through a subject that deserves much better.
Let me start by asking the following question:
Why is a discussion of science and the scientific method relevant to a series of diaries about atheism and atheists?
There is a simple answer to this question:
Because atheists do not hold to a belief system that includes gods and other supernatural phenomenon, they use science as a replacement belief system.
A simple answer--but entirely incorrect. As to why this is incorrect, and what the correct answer is--that story lies at the end of the diary.
What is the Scientific Method?
Back in high school, we all were introduced to the scientific method as a series of steps which scientists use, exemplified by this kind of flowchart:
Courtesy Michigan State University
Unfortunately, this really doesn't begin to explain the why and how of the scientific method, and presents a distorted picture of it.
A better approach is first to understand what, historically, the scientific method has come to mean, and why it is a useful methodology for understanding the natural world.
The history of what the scientific method has come to be today--and what its implementation and use looks like--is long and complicated, spanning at least a millennium, from the time of the first Arabic scientists. It did not spring, full blown, as a method of investigating the natural world. But, starting from the time of Newton and others, it had been reasonably solidified as the standard mechanism for investigations in "natural philosophy" as it was then called.
Newton, in his masterwork Principia, laid out his view of how the scientific method should work:
- We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
- Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
- The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
- In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
Over the centuries since Newton's outline (and from the earlier works of Arabic and other scholars) we have come to a somewhat more sophisticated view of the basis of the scientific method, which can be summarized and slightly rearranged as:
- Questions about the natural world--the universe if you will--are the proper and only domain of science. Stephen J. Gould outlined his view of the Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOM) of science and religion is his book Rocks of Ages (1999). This is not a view without detractors, but serves as a good starting point for understanding what science's proper boundaries are.
- Occam's Razor--the scientific method must strive for the most parsimonious explanation. Introduction of unnecessary forces or actors in a hypothesis are not desirable, and given the choice between competing explanations, the simpler one is usually the more correct one. (Note that, in a scientific venue, "simpler" may not be easy to determine.)
- Uniformity of law: Natural laws are constant across space and time. (Note that this is not to say that natural laws never change--it is that, in general, natural laws working in the scientist's lab, for instance, can be assumed to be at work elsewhere and at other times--and, if those forces do change over time, they change in predictable and explainable ways.)
Uniformity of process: If a past phenomenon can be understood as the result of a process now acting in time and space, do not invent an extinct or unknown cause as its explanation. (Both of these formulations are from Stephen J. Gould, Is Uniformitarianism Necessary? (1965)).
Both of these also lead to the concept of reproducibility--if one person does an experiment s/he should get the same results as anyone else. if not, then the experimental conditions are not identical and need to be understood, or the original experiment was incorrect, as a result of error or fraud.
- Knowledge gained through the scientific method is provisional. It is true only insofar as it has not yet been proven false.
To this set of general principles, Karl Popper added the concept of falsifiability. Simply put, unless a claim can be falsified, it cannot be a scientific statement. Note that, in this context, "falsifiable" does not mean that it has been proven untrue, but that it could be proven untrue.
For example, the statement "All ravens are black" is a falsifiable statement--the observation of a single non-black raven would be sufficient to show it to be a false statement, even if such a raven is never found.
As an example of a non-falsifiable, and therefore unscientific statement, consider: "...[the] idea of an omnipotent God who is capable of hiding His own tracks" (Wikipedia)
With this--admittedly simplistic--explanation of the scientific method in place, let's talk about how this methodology is applied in the pursuit of science and scientific knowledge.
How is the Scientific Method applied (i.e., What is Science)?
The scientific method is a valuable set of tools for understanding the world around us. However it, like any tool, must be used and applied by all too fallible humans. And, so, the modern systems in place for applying the scientific method in the pursuit of science are intended to prevent such fallibility from affecting the correctness and value of the knowledge gained.
For this reason, modern scientists rely on what I like call the "open source" model of scientific pursuit. That is, all steps of the process used by a scientist are open to scrutiny by other scientists.
The formal process by which this scrutiny is achieved is by publishing results (and the data and information required to reproduce the relevant experiments) in peer-reviewed journals. The peer-review takes place prior to publishing, so that "poor quality" science can be weeded out. Once published, the information is often used by other scientists to replicate the experiment and validate or invalidate the results. This method also allows the scientific community to extend results past what the original researcher may have done, and permits cross-fertilization between different branches of science.
The actual experimental work itself is done by scientists using an approach not unlike what you learned in high school:
Four essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:
- Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
- Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
- Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
- Experiments (tests of all of the above)
Wikipedia, Scientific Method
Why is the Scientific Method useful?
The simplest answer to give to this question: because it works.
Over the course of more than 150 years of modern science being the dominant means of understanding the world around us, our knowledge of that world, and our ability to control and predict it, have shown this method to be an effective one.
No other method has had this kind of success. Religious belief systems, where they have made predictions or statements about the physical world, have been wrong time and again. The Earth is not 6,000 years old; there was not a world-wide flood within human historical time; humans were not created de novo, but evolved from ancestors related to the great apes.
But, of course, this begs the question: why does it work so well?
I would argue that the scientific method works well for these reasons:
- The scientific method consists of set of clearly defined, logically consistent methods for knowledge acquisition.
- The scientific method does not depend for its proper operation upon the belief system of the practitioner--it is independent of the observer/experimenter.
- The scientific method concerns itself only with the operation of the physical world and questions of "how".
- The scientific method concerns itself with the "ultimate truths of the universe" only insofar as it deals with provisional versions of "truth", which get closer all the time to the ultimate goal, but never actually reach it.
- The scientific method, as practiced within the domain of modern science, is ultimately a system intended, as far as possible, to factor out human shortcomings in its operation.
Is science the only way to knowledge about the world around us? Perhaps not--but it appears to be the best and most successful means for answering those "how" questions. Ultimately, other means of knowledge acquisition may be better suited to the "why" questions. But, for us to know the "how" of its operation and its manipulation for human ends, science and the scientific method will likely be the "only game in town" for the foreseeable future.
Summary
So, to get back to the question at the beginning of this diary:
Why is a discussion of science and the scientific method relevant to a series of diaries about atheism and atheists?
My answer?
Atheists' way of understanding the world does not rely on a belief in gods, miracles, supernatural occurrences or the like. We rely on the time-tested processes of science and the scientific method, processes which do not require "belief" as defined in the second diary in the series, Semantics--"belief" as not requiring proof, and usually not provisional or subject to correction or falsification.
An ending note: in this diary, I have had to skip many topics of interest: what about the frauds committed in the name of science--what do these say about the validity of the scientific method? Is science an amoral enterprise, taking on the moral weight only by what humans choose to use it for, or does it inherently possess moral consequence or moral authority? Topics for a future time, perhaps, but feel free to raise these issues in your comments.
The floor is now open for comments.
Links to online articles of interest:
Wikipedia entry on The Scientific Method
Wikipedia article on the Philosophy of Science
Wikipedia article on the History of Science
Books relevant to science and the scientific method:
Beginners Guide to the Scientific Method
Ever Since Darwin
The Panda's Thumb
The Mismeasure of Man
Wonderful Life
Full House
Here is the schedule for the remainder of the Atheist Digest series:
Tuesday August 11th – Topic 4 – Religion’s Successes and Failures - (Something the dog said)
This diary is an Atheist’s view of the history of religion. What positive benefits it may have on society, and the negative side of organized religion, and unorganized spirituality. This is discussed with the caveat that no positive result of religion equates to a reason to believe in a god. This is religion as sociology, not theology.
Thursday August 13th – Topic 5 – Evolution – (Rfall)
We probably won’t get a lot of arguments about the validity of evolution from the Daily Kos community. However we need to discuss evolution in the context of scientific method, emphasizing the consensus between different fields of science, and the real meaning of the word ‘theory.’ Also, we’ll add a little about creationism in schools, the Kitzmiller v. Dover school board controversy in ’05, and the creationist museum.
Sunday August 16th – Topic 6 – Common Arguments and Misconceptions about Atheists - (Superbowl XX)
We run into some of these pretty frequently. A big one we need to discuss is "morality comes from religion." Another we must tackle is the "U.S. was founded by Christians/based on Christian principles" myth. We are reassuring Christians that we are not out to ‘get’ them and eat their babies, and discussing why we even need to reassure them. We will address irrational fears that Christianity is somehow being oppressed by ‘militant secularists’ and the gays.
Tuesday August 18th – Topic 7 – Creation, Cosmology, Deism, and the Space-Time Continuum. - (Chicagoa)
Chicagoa: This will be "a diary on cosmology - physics, logic, and theory - to explain to the haughty deists why we don't accept their First Cause or Kalam Cosmological arguments for the existence of a non-interventionist designer deity." This will possibly include a discussion of the philosophy of infinite/finite time and space, and explore the common misperceptions of Einstein’s and Hawking’s views of "God."
Thursday August 20th – Topic 8 – The Other Side of the Fence: Faith and Spirituality, (Rebuttal?) - (Colorado is the Shiznit)
Colorado is the Shiznit will lead the charge on this one, because the rest of us aren’t really qualified. We would like to have some discussion on what benefits many feel they get from faith and/or spirituality, and why they hold these beliefs. We would also like to get some kind of survey of religion/spiritual people’s perspective of Atheism/Atheists.
Sunday August 23rd - Topic 9 - Growing up Atheist - (WarrenS)
WarrenS talks about growing up in a family of atheists (all right, grandparents on one side were churchgoers, but that's it). How did his parents (both scientists) teach morality and ethics? How did growing up atheist affect his relationships with religions and religious organizations? How did it affect his relationships with religious people? Now that he has a child of his own, how will he approach these questions? Expect lots of stories and thought-provoking digressions in this one.
Tuesday August 25th - Conclusion: ‘Why We Care So Much’ - (XNeeOhCon, with input from all)
This one is pretty simple, but needs more attention. We need to make everyone see why we are so ‘obsessed’ with religion and what it really means to be Atheist in the United States. Within this section we will restate why we felt like participating in this series, and what we hoped to accomplish. We’ll try to tie up as many loose ends as possible and we will get some brief concluding statements from any of those who participated that would like to submit them.