science

The subject of this post is the result of three unrelated comments that I have either heard recently, or which have been made directly to me recently.

Two of them came from my mom's email list but I didn't feel that was the right forum for me to go all philosophical and wordy so I didn't address the comments there. In the first instance, one of the moms was involved in a discussion of mammograms and how a radiologist didn't like the look of something in her mother's x-rays despite it having all the signs and symptoms of being a cyst that is benign 99% of the time. It turned out the radiologist was correct to be concerned. Anyway, she closed her story with with

"I'll take intuition over science any day."

Another mom on my list (being a quizzical sort) referred to the Carl Sagan signature that is at the end of all my emails that reads: "

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." She noted my sig and simply asked:
"Why?"

And the last instance comes about because of my penchant for browsing through blogs of some very conservative people and trying to understand their positions on global warming. I do this for several reasons. Many of these people are quite intelligent and have some good questions. In my constant quest to remain open-minded, rather than dismiss their arguments, I enjoy thinking about them and trying to decide if they make me question my own beliefs. Unfortunately, most of these folks are also clearly not open to a rational discussion of the subject and would not be interested in hearing my viewpoint as a scientist working in the field (mostly because what I have learned does not mesh with what they'd like to hear). And because many of them can be downright rude, I'm not about to jump into the fire. (I'm not good at confrontation, believe it or not.) But I am intensely interested in the motivation and reasons for their beliefs. In any case, the comments on more than one blog I have been reading demand proof that climate change is being caused by humans. One of the recurring battle cries is essentially:

"No one has shown me the proof!"

Which all have led me to wax philosophical about what I think science is.

First, I can tell you what science is not. Science is certainly not statistics. Statistics are facts. Statistics are concrete. Science is much more malleable than that. Science is a constantly changing search for explanation. Science often uses statistics to guide thinking and to help search for causal relationships, but it is in no way limited to statistics. So when my first friend compared intuition to science, I think what she really meant was intuition versus statistics. Because intuition is, in fact, integral to science. And that is what has drawn me in from the beginning. I love the art of science. It is the perfect blend of logic and intuition. Science is not rigid. It seeks to shatter past-held beliefs rather than remain beholden to them. It has no bounds. It wants to expand and grow. It is not stagnant.

And that (kind of) leads to my next comment. For my fellow bloggers who are looking for "proof" of global warming - eh. No. That's not going to happen because that is not science. Strictly speaking, you can only "prove" that a theory is incorrect. It is only the absence of disproof which is compelling evidence that a theory is a good explanation of what we observe (and that does not equal "proof"). Compelling (usually empirical) evidence is as good as you're going to get in science. Science is not mathematics. It is not rigid. We can assign subjective degrees of reliability to various scientific theories, but that is the best we can do. In the case of global warming, there is a high degree of reliability placed on human emissions of carbon increasing the average surface temperature. We know this by examining empirical evidence such as signatures of carbon isoptopic ratios in tree rings and ice cores that strongly suggest the dramatic rise in CO2 over the last 150 years or so is due to burning fossil fuels. (Click here if you're interested in discussion of this). No real scientist will be able to "prove" that the increase in CO2 and associated global warming is due to humans. But ~99% of scientists believe that it is so.

As an aside, I find it a little interesting how this description of science reflects the debate over the existence of God. I do not believe you can offer up any absolute "proof" of God, either. Yet, while I am comfortable with the fact that scientific theory cannot be supported by "proof", I am uncomfortable with the fact that God cannot be supported by proof. I reconcile this by the argument of reasonable and reliable evidence. Scientific theories can be supported by evidence that I find compelling. God cannot be supported by evidence that I find compelling. (shrug). In the big scheme of things we have a level of "unknowable" that we all eventually reach. We can ascribe that to "God", or we can ascribe it to something as simply unknowable. Whether there is a material difference in what we assign as definitions is a matter of personal decision.

And then there is my friend who asked "Why" to one of my favorite Sagan quotes.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

It's a good question. Is delusion or pretension such a bad thing? Is it harmful or immoral? There are certainly cases where it is hurtful, I think, but it's not a universal truth that it is. However, I can only answer for myself. I believe delusion and pretension is very, very limiting. I believe the search for truth - the search for explanation (which is my definition of science) is what blows apart the boundaries that we set for ourselves. It's only when we are willing to open ourselves up to the infinite possibilities of "truth" that we don't yet understand that we can experience a fullness to life. Granted, that's not what all of us want. This isn't a "right" or "wrong" explanation. It's just what works for me.