The faith of scientists

Posted by Oliver Robinson on 25 November 2009 | 3 Comments

Tags: , , ,

The great difference between science and religion is that scientists follow the evidence and follow their senses – they are empiricist and are open to being disproved. On the other hand, we are told, religion is dogmatically chained to the past and sensory data cannot overturn scripture.  But the longer I work as a scientifically researcher (admittedly in psychology, not the natural sciences, but the point I am making applies for all), the more I realise that what we do is steeped in faith.  Every article I write, or any researcher writes, must first review scores of other previous studies/experiments and develop hypotheses correspondingly. But how do I know that all of these are legitimate? How do I know that they are reliable sources of fact and Truth? Well, there are various safeguards in place. Research goes through the peer-review process – we hope that other people will be able to vet out rubbish or falsified data. But the truth is that they can’t. If someone wants to make up data, then without looking at the original data itself, then even that can be meddled with and made up.  Also, research generally has to come out of a recognised university department, and that is considered a safeguard against dodgy research too.  But in fact, whenever I refer to somebody else’s research, I have faith that the knowledge is legitimate. If I was to be a true empiricist, I would have to directly sense something first before I accept it as knowledge. In science, the majority of knowledge is second-hand, not direct. The majority of knowledge is not derived empirically. How many people have actually seen the climate change data, and how many just take on faith – accepting scientific authority? So why is the faith in science, in academia, any different than religious faith?  Why is trust in a scientific authority any better than trust in a religious authority?  Big questions, but the best we can do while pondering them is to retain a healthy scepticism of scientific authority, avoid scientific dogma  and avoid scientists pontificating about things over which they have no authority.  Science can state what is and is not the case, it cannot tell us what is valuable, precious or morally right. At least as far as I can tell.

Olly Robinson


Comments

  • Consciousness studies is the area of science that I am most interested in. The faith statement/underlying premise or axiom that consciousness is non-physical and therefore non-efficacious bedevils this area. Possibly the majority of papers and books published in this area only make sense with this premise, and this despite the fact that according to the scientific paradigm of most of the writers there is no such thing as the non-physical, efficacious or otherwise.

    Posted by Simon Raggett, 09/12/2009 7:10pm (8 months ago)

  • Re science and Religion.
    Many thanks for the experienced and sane view of much that is called science, which is so often viewed as "holy" or unholy truth rather than "the best hypothesis so far".
    The Department of Parapsychology, at Edinburgh University has I believe done some studies of publishing bias in the alleged peer-reviewed establishment journals.
    It does seem obvious that the peers, depending on who is chosen, will like some work and arguments, but not others ESPECIALLY if it could upset the "established" view of large-grant-run departments.
    Crighton Miller, who started the Tavistock Clinic to provide psycho-analysis to the less well off, and was a keen member of the Student Christian Movement with my grandfather - about 1895 - made the clear observation in his autobigraphical notes - published privately that:
    Some things have been proved; some will be proved and some are not available for a proving system.
    Ever since reading such a succint summary I have often wondered why/how the religion and scince "debate" still goes on. Except that some folk want to make a career out of apparently basically useless dispute!! Not a music and science debate, nor an art and science debate.
    Perhaps Crighton Miller was sensible, but modern-man has little memory of old sane views!!
    Best wishes to Olly Robinson.
    Any relation to Bishop John Robinson of "Honest to God" book in the 70's.

    Posted by Chris Holland, 06/12/2009 10:34pm (8 months ago)

  • Olly is right that there are some analogies between science and religion, and that the word ‘faith’ is often used in both contexts. But there are also major differences. Take the classic statement of faith, the Nicene Creed. This makes a number of statements, and, with the exception of several historical claims about Jesus’ life and death, most of these statements are not susceptible to verification by empirical observation or experiment. On the whole, the nature of faith in the religious context means a personal commitment which does not rest on evidence or on publicly observable facts, and cannot be tested by experiment. With the natural sciences the case is different. Take the example which Olly uses – climate change. It is true that we often take scientific theories like this on faith – ‘on trust’ might be better. But if we had doubts about them, or about the scientists’ motives for advocating them, we have access in principle to the data and the experiments on which they are claimed to rest, all of which is – or should be - in the public domain. This might involve the bother of studying for a science degree, and the difficulty of this is why we need to take certain things that scientists say on trust. But we know that there are certain procedures that science follows in reaching its conclusions and on which its public statements are based, and which give rise to theories which are in principle publicly testable by well known, universally accepted, methods. This is quite different from religious faith. I agree, however, that we should ‘retain a healthy scepticism of scientific authority, avoid scientific dogma and avoid scientists pontificating about things over which they have no authority’. But I would add that we should also cultivate this sort of skepticism about religious authority, but skepticism about its doctrines is a different matter entirely and arises simply from the fact that they are not based on empirical evidence. Which is not to say they are without value and importance in our lives.

    Posted by John Clarke, 27/11/2009 12:21pm (8 months ago)

Post your comment