Science and Incontestability

There is this misperception that science is somehow superior to religion because scientific theories are modifiable. Why is modifiability equated to superiority? When people say that science is open to questions and that scientific hypotheses, theories and laws are open to change, what do they really mean?

As I have posited previously, science begins with the presupposition that there are some laws governing the universe, and then sets out to discover those laws. That presupposition is absolutely necessary for science to even survive. All our scientific efforts are attempts to find out what those laws are. Scientific process is iterative and uses trial and error. We look at the world, make observations, take notes, make some guesses, build a model, make further observations and compare the model with these new observations to see how accurate the model is and then if needed we modify the model and do it all over again. As our ability to observe becomes keener and more precise, we keep overhauling our theories to encompass details we didn't notice before. For instance, Newton proposed a model of gravitation. After three centuries Einstein overhauled that theory to match new observations and proposed a new understanding of gravitation. More recently scientists have proposed yet another way to explain the phenomenon that we call gravitation. Now these are all attempts to understand and explain the same mystery. The phenomenon in nature where everything attracts everything else hasn't changed at all. Only our model for it has changed from a hypothetical force to a hypothetical curvature of space-time to an exchange of a hypothetical particle. Gravitation is just one example, but there are many others. Sometimes one theory merges in another, sometimes one replaces another. But always, it goes from less precise to more precise, lesser understanding to greater understanding, less perfect to more perfect. This progress obviously begs the question, is it ever to end? Can we ever come up with the final theory or theories? Or is it an infinite progression to a never achievable goal?

Let's see what happens in either case:

1. First, take the case where such a final theory is indeed achievable. We know scientists aspire for a Theory of Everything. One fine day in the not-so-distant future one or more scientists might actually discover that theory. It would describe the entire universe in exact detail. It might be a monolithic theory or it might have separate parts pertaining to different natural phenomena. But either way the theory would be perfect. Science would reach its pinnacle: no more groping around, no more approximations, no more iterations. But if you stop to think, at that moment science would also become unchangeable. With that achievement its reputation for being modifiable would be forever ruined. How do you modify a perfect theory? Why would you?
2. Let's take the other possibility where a final theory is unachievable. In that view, science can forever update its theories but will never reach the end. The theories will always be partial, imperfect and approximate. No matter how many times they are modified and rewritten, they'll always miss something. While such a fate of science would keep its reputation of modifiability intact, it would also greatly weaken its reputation as a truth seeking tool. Why rely on something that is doomed not to succeed?

Unfortunately, those are the only two directions science can go. It can either find the ultimate theory, as many believe it can, or it can't. But no matter which one is true it does not bode well for science as it is right now. If you believe the first option is how it will end then you must agree that there exists a peak and science hasn't reached that peak yet. It's theories are still imperfect and its vaunted openness to change is not so much an evidence of superiority as it is a warning of incompleteness. So if your biggest argument against religion is that it is incontestable and impervious to change, then your argument is slightly hypocritical, because the moment science finds that Theory of Everything it too will become incontestable and unchangeable. On the other hand, if you believe that a final theory can never be reached by science and while it shall always remain flexible, it can never actually get to the bottom of the mystery then you are acknowledging that you are working with an inadequate tool. Note that none of these two conclusions are forced upon science from outside.

Scientific Faith

There are people who ridicule religion and extol science because science is logical and cerebral whereas religion is, according to them, devoid of logic, based on faith and entirely fantastic. Science accepts nothing on faith and religion accepts nothing but faith. But is this characterization really true?

Science strives to find an underlying order in the nature of things. If things were truly random, or at least if people believed that everything was random then seeking universal laws would be futile, since no law would ever hold, if one could even formulate one. But even if things were utterly random (e.g. gravity on today, off for the next three days, back on at 17.31% intensity for eight and three quarter days etc. with even the length of days varying completely unpredictably) scientists would probably still try to find a pattern to the randomness. Pattern finding is at the heart of science, because seemingly, patterns point to an underlying commonness, a natural law. That, in fact, is the first faith of science: the belief that there are some laws which govern the universe. You cannot participate in the scientific dialogue if you think that there are no laws and everything is completely unpredictable and transient, much like a dream (which is why dreams are outside the realm of science). Of course, you can say that it's not mere faith, patterns actually exist in the world: there are cycles such as days and nights and seasons, water always freezes to ice, fire always burns, rainbows look the same, all drops of water take a spherical shape etc. Therefore, patterns exist in nature whether we seek it or not. Alright. But so what if patterns exist? Does the occurrence of patterns prove anything? The scientific argument, as I mentioned, is that patterns point to the existence of underlying laws, that repetition can be explained by a common cause. Now that's another point of faith! What reason is there to believe that repetitions of an observable fact in nature is caused by the same underlying cause? There could be two (or three or infinitely many) completely different circumstances that gives rise to the same observable effect! Yesterday's rainbow could have been caused by some thing entirely different from what caused today's rainbow. And tomorrow's could be caused by a whole new principle. Just because the manifestation is the same, the reason behind it doesn't have to be. (In all fairness science actually acknowledges this last one, but in a limited manner e.g. both acceleration and gravitation can produce the same effect. But why stop at two?)

Therefore the primary postulates of science are:

• there are laws that govern the universe causing patterns to appear and,
  
• there are only a finite number of underlying laws for all observable phenomena in nature.

If you do not believe that is an accurate depiction of science, ponder the pursuit of a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or Theory Of Everything (TOE).

The two postulates are interdependent, like two sides of a coin, and neither takes precedence over the other. They cannot be proven by any means known to science and are therefore, fundamental beliefs no matter who argues to the contrary. Without them science cannot exist as a discipline. Of course, there are other beliefs that also go into the making of science but this is good for a starting point. As far as I know, this view is quite different (if not diametrically opposite) from the one we are taught: that science is a tool to uncover and understand the laws of nature. I can almost anticipate the counterargument: that modern science proves the existence and underlying unity of natural laws. But that is a circular argument and many renowned scientists have committed that fallacy. Science does not prove the existence and unity of natural laws, science presupposes it. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are several other instances of faith in science to be examined in later posts.

How is then science so much superior to religion?