I'm taking some science classes and listening to a lot of science-themed radio, plus associating with a lot of scientists... well, it's just got me thinking. It's got me thinking about Pascal's Wager.
Quick summary: Pascal was a haughty atheist all his life, but became religious toward the end of his life just in case. He argued that he had nothing to lose, since God's existence could not be proved or disproved. If he died and turned out to be right--heaven. If he died and nothing happened--no harm done.
Clearly, there are many things wrong with this, but that's not the point of this post, so to move on.
"Pascal's Wager" has become a term that scientists use to refer to pseudoscientists. It is essentially the idea that when there is no definite scientific explanation for a phenomenon, any other explanation will do.
Well my concern is the anti-pascal's wager that I see so often in the scientific community. I don't mean the religious version from Richard Dawkins. What I mean is when scientists proclaim, "just because science can't explain it now, doesn't mean it won't in the future!"
If delving deeper into science has taught me anything, it is how tentative science can sometimes be. It's always changing, morphing. There are always arguments going on, so many people disagree on the "facts." Or what those "facts" prove. Sometimes it's just as hard to trust a scientific explanation, as it is to trust a supernatural one.
Okay, okay, that's a huge exaggeration. I didn't mean it, I swear. I really appreciate just how level-headed scientists are, compared to the pseudoscientists. It makes it way easier to trust them.
It's that blind faith that scientists often have. The blind faith that science will explain it all, eventually. It feels misguided and naive to me. Or egotistical. Take your pick.
Can we just get a little skepticism on both ends of the spectrum here? When someone proclaims, "God hates fill-in-the-blank," I want you to ask, "Where in the bible does it say that?" When someone says, "Evidence shows that fill-in-the-blank," I want you to ask, "What is the evidence for that?" You might be surprised what you find.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Well the thing is that you don't have to believe. If there's something you don't know you could tell them that you don't know. That's usually what I do even if it tends to irritate people because they are used to getting answers all the time. Mostly because there are four categories of people :
- general public. They don't know but they will repeat what the last person told them.
- journalists. They are not interested in the truth but in a "good story".
- fundamentalists. They know because they know.
- politicians. They will lie through their teeth if it advances their cause.
Anyway back to your post, endless arguments about facts may seem like silly and a waste of time, but that is strangely what makes science advance. Nobody likes the devil's advocate and his memory will be maligned in the future but, hey, imagine that Darwin comes in, deliver his speech about the origin of species and everybody agrees and accept him as their new prophet. Where's the interest of that ? What would then make this idea a better idea than any stupid idea we've had in the course of history ? Of course it needs arguing. Of course somebody will waste their entire life time to disprove this idea by poking at holes wherever he can find them. Is that good, bad ? Neither. But that's how advance is made.
Post a Comment