More on Assumptions
One of my criticisms about scientists is that often they do not have an understanding of what science really is. I’ve heard it said that if something is accepted by scientists it
must be correct as peer review guarantees this!
This document here implies this (although it is really no more than an advertising brochure, devoid of facts). Many studies have been done which show that peer review is not objective (eg
here and
here). Peer review simply ensures that ideas that do not conform to the consensus are not published.
Another myth is that science ‘proves’ things to be true. Not only does science not prove things – it simply indicates that in certain controlled situations we can expect certain results – but also it raises the question of what we mean by proof. Proof is simply what convinces us.
But the issue I want to raise here is that of assumptions. I
previously wrote that science makes a number of assumptions even in the course of a simple experiment. I got a number of responses saying something on the line that science can question its assumptions whereas religion cannot. Although it is true that a religion cannot question its assumptions, nor can science. What concerns me is that when people make statements like this, they obviously haven’t thought through what they are saying. They represent themselves as the arbiters of rational thought but comments such as this are made as ‘knee jerk’ comments.
Consider this: we have a system for making a judgment about something. In our case, this system is called the scientific method, although it doesn’t matter what the system is. It could be reading tea leaves or a well–defined system of experiments. When we get a conclusion, it is only as reliable as the system we used. We cannot test the system using the system, we have to use another system and then the same caveats apply. We have to assume the system is giving us reliable results. So it is not possible to have ANY system that does not make assumptions. Usually, in the course of everyday life these assumptions are useful and reliable, but one of the features of an assumption is that it seems so obvious that it cannot be questioned. So, to a scientist repeatability is so obvious that they think you would have to be stupid to not accept it. To someone who has a firm conviction that God operates in the world, it may seem so obvious that they think there must be something wrong with people who can’t see it.
To say that science is somehow above assumptions, belief, personal bias etc is, at best, incorrect and naive. At worst it is arrogant. For science to work, you must assume that experiments are repeatable and you must assume that if the results of an experiment come out differently then you can isolate which factor has changed. These are logically contradictory assumptions: in any repeat of an experiment an infinite number of things have changed but you make assumptions as what is relevant. Science works because we fudge it and muddle through, but this is not the impression of science that many people have.
