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.
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?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment