On Science

Some time ago on the Australian ABC a program on mental illness examined the concept of delusions. The program started off with obvious delusions: a person who thought he had no internal organs, then moved on the more esoteric delusions, for instance people who think they have been abducted by aliens. This gave rise to the issue of what constitutes a delusion, and the answer the researchers came up with was that something is a delusion if it cannot be backed up with evidence.

What constitutes evidence, and the basis of science, is so little understood that it could be said that the woolly thinking that people have on this issue constitutes a bigger danger than any terrorist. If we take the research in the example I gave, someone who believes in God, in spirits or the afterlife is deluded. (One might ask if someone who believes in black holes would be considered deluded, as one has never been seen.) It may only be a matter of time before such people are given drugs or ECT 'for their own good'. People use such terms as ‘scientific evidence' and ‘unscientific' without having any understanding of what science is.

A while ago there was an article in the Melbourne Age about an Irish company Steorn that had announced it had built a machine that could produce over unity energy, in other words it produced more energy then was put into it. A professor of physics in an interview stated that such a claim overthrew 2000 years of science and if he were to investigate such a machine it would only be to show how it didn't do what it claimed to do.

That even a professor of physics could have so little understanding of science is depressing. The scientific method (or what passes for it) could, at best, be traced back to Newton (around 450 years ago) who was the first person recorded to have made the assertion that facts should be born out by experimental evidence. However the sticking point of the Steorn machine is the first law of thermodynamics which was formulated by Rudolf Clausius in 1850:

"There is a state function E, called 'energy', whose differential equals the work exchanged with the surroundings during an adiabatic process."

In other words there is a conservation of energy - energy cannot be created or destroyed. This goes back around 150 years ago. But more to the point, science should be about observation, experimentation, hypotheses and theory while keeping an open mind.

It was the philosopher Karl Popper in the 1960's who came up with the concept of empirical falsifiability, that is, that having observed a pattern of behaviour, one devises a hypotheses that would explain it, and then makes experiments to attempt to disprove it. If the experiments fail (that is, the hypotheses is not disproved) the hypotheses can then be made into a theory. The scientist's job is, in part, to attempt to disprove the theory.

However, rarely do scientists follow this. When ideas are accused of being 'unscientific' what is usually meant is not that idea has failed scientific testing, but that the idea is not acceptable to the scientific community. In other words, what is accepted scientific thought is what scientists say is acceptable. Most laymen are not in a position to dispute this and thus a whole oligarchy of scientists have become the arbiters of what is acceptable. It is a small step to then saying that someone who does not accept this is suffering from delusions and is mentally ill.

When Steorn announced their over-unity device they were met with a very hostile reception. In an interview with Sky TV the CEO, Sean MacCarthy, even said he had received death threats. The reaction of 'scientists' to these claims is comparable to that of fundamentalist believers. To a large extent science has become a religion and scientists its high priests.

Like any oligarchy, the scientific establishment perpetuates itself. Students progress through passing exams that are set by people who have certain beliefs. If the student conforms to these beliefs he will be accepted. If he doesn't, he will fail. Thus only those who share the views of the prevailing elite will progress. How many students would progress in Western universities who didn't accept Darwinism? In my view Darwinism doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, but that is for another article.

Even in its pure form, science is simply a tool for a job. Like any tool it is well suited to some tasks. If we wanted to determine how water boils, or the chemical structure of a substance, science is a very good tool. For some other tasks, like determining sociological or psychological behaviour it can work sometimes and sometimes can be wide of the mark. For other things, such as politics or examining religious belief it is simply the wrong tool for the job. It is an aspect of the arrogance of scientists that they think science can answer all questions. And even then, scientists rarely use this tool in the correct way.

We need also to examine the notions of 'proof' and 'belief'. I once said that I doubted that the (then) Archbishop of Canterbury really believed in God. Such a notion may sound absurd. George Orwell in one of his essays wrote about talking to a Jehovah's Witness who told him that as an unbeliever he was damned to hell for eternity. He remarked that she said this as if she may say that he was going to get a stomachache. If she really believed what she was saying she would have been more concerned for him - after all, he was not going to be in a bit of pain but in unrelenting torment for eternity. The point he made was that although she said this she didn't really believe it. If I told you that I believed there was a tiger in the room that was about to attack me, but I remained sitting and chatting and didn't seem concerned, you may well be doubtful about my belief. However if I acted scared and tried to leave you may be convinced. So when I said that I doubted that the Archbishop really believed in God, it was because although he said the right things his actions didn't seem to confirm it.

What constitutes proof is what satisfies us - no more, no less. And, to use an aphorism, 'experience transcends belief'. I often read scientists who explain the formation of a rainbow. The theory is that the position of a rainbow is related to the position of the observer and the sun. As you move, the rainbow moves so you can never get to the end of it. Well, I once drove through the end of a rainbow. This wasn't near a waterfall or some other factor that could explain it; it was in a Melbourne suburb. The rainbow's end got nearer and nearer and then I was driving through a red, yellow and blue haze. What's more, other people have reported the same thing. Even in letters to New Science people reported this phenomenon. I am told, though, that I must be deluded because my experience doesn't concur with scientific knowledge. Similarly, I have had mystical experiences that convince me that there is a God and have given me an understanding of how He works in the world. No scientist is going to convince me otherwise simply because my ideas don't agree with the scientific establishment.