Some time ago, a bright friend of mine wrote a lengthy blog post in defense of a widely misunderstood point.
Traditionally, people go about investigating claims, evaluating observations, and drawing conclusions in a truly narrow, insensitive and, ignorant fashion. This is because, as Mr. Shockley indicates, there are many, many aspects of our reality that are not quantifiable. He argues that the reason we find farts funny rather than sad, for example, ought to be considered on the same level as the speed at which the universe is expanding. For a full justification as to why, you can read his entire post(linked below). What I am interested in is a truth that the legitimacy of qualitative evidences exposes: science is a weak machine.
It is so well established that you may even hear it called a fact; the scientific method is the best way to investigate. Consider a question, make a guess as to the answer, then set up a model with conditions such that the guess's probable accuracy is exposed. This is a phenomenal way to investigate certain types of claims. The problem is that these types of claims are so abundant, and thus such a great amount of science takes place, that it is considered the perfect tool for answering all questions.
The scientific method put a monumental limit on itself on step one of the process: formulating a testable question. If we don't know how to test something, then we can't do anything to try to answer it, so what's the point of posing a such question? It's a very reasonable limit. Disaster ensues when this limit goes unacknowledged or under-appreciated.
A question is testable when we can come up with an answer whose accuracy is testable. If such an answer can never be thought of, then the question has to be thrown out entirely.
Limit 1: Scientific process is limited by imagination. This doesn't always seem terribly daunting. Most would lessen the blow by simply saying that as time goes on, knowledge increases and imagination increases with it. It's only a matter of time before we'll have the answers to today's questions.
But while certain big and very important questions are pushed aside, awaiting a creative enough mind to formulate a test, science marches on. It is continuously finding more possible solutions to questions, and the compilation of these answers directs all new investigations down a certain path. At best, this is a waste of energy of resources. At worst, it creates entirely incorrect bases of thought that are incredibly difficult to correct down the road. Either way, nutritionists get rich while we keep on getting fatter, and your 7-year-old junior college diploma is about as meaningful as that weird kid next-door's self-ordination into the Jedi Council.
There are yet greater limitations that the testable question requirement sets on discovery.
Scientific process only works if the hypothesis is of a material nature - we have to be able to test it by manipulating material things with our material bodies. This gives us two limits.
Limit 2: Scientific process demands a naturalist worldview. There's no denying the immense popularity of belief in something supernatural across all cultures and time periods. This isn't evidence that such a thing does in fact exist, only a decently good reason to be cautious. Unless claims of supernatural things have been demonstrated to be false at their root, they are still on the table as possibilities...unless you're a scientist.
Admittedly, any claim of the supernatural isn't really very fair. There's nothing to stop a lad from pointing to any particular natural process or naturalistic explanation for something and saying "My god made it that way". This is frustrating and fruitless.
But a belief's failure to offer constructive value to investigation is no reason to call it invalid. Maybe an invisible turtle really did vomit our world into motion, creating things with the appearance of self-sustainability and a natural origin. There is zero evidence against this. We like to call statements like that foolish and not worth considering. But why? It's not because we know it's false. We simply choose to take a skeptical stance, really just because we feel like it. Sounds childish when you say it like that, don't it?
Yet, science builds and builds its expert-approved, big picture theory that leaves no room for any un-testable variables. It does this out of necessity more than ignorance - if we can't consider true the explanations that our tests prove valid, we might as well stop doing science. So it operates in a way that can sustain itself. It believes in what it would prefer to be true, as if its will has any bearing on the truth at all.
Limit 3: Science requires us to abandon our intuition. This is where funny farts come in. There are certain things people just experience to be the case. Some acts are wrong. People can love. Humans are more important than rocks. The justifications for these statements are by no means quantifiable and sometimes one can't be offered at all.
But this lack of quantifiable evidence doesn't take away from the validity of these statements.
If science isn't careful(which it doesn't have a great reputation for), it will delve into challenging intuitions, playing as both the opponent and the judge. This can be devastating.
There are a very select few people that are able to deny key things that cannot be explained with quantitative facts. There is something inside that tells us that human life means something. We can't shake the idea that something is wrong with us, implying there is some ideal, something we are meant for, that we haven't reached. This is every bit as important as any measurement, any calculation.
The "Why Farting Is Funny" Argument by Maxwell Schockley
http://pirateperspectivetheology.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-why-is-farting-funny-theological.html?spref=fb
No comments:
Post a Comment