A second concern that is certainly reflected in this book is about the displays of antagonism and the use of inflammatory rhetoric by certain elements of the scientific community toward religion and religious beliefs. Admittedly, parts of the religious communities have exhibited emotional anti-science sentiments. However, it seems to me that open-mindedness and tolerance are not necessarily expected, and certainly are not required, characteristics of religious belief. Some religions embrace such values, but others are inherently and doctrinally not tolerant. Indeed, the members of some sects believe themselves to be directed to proselytize and convert. Science, in contrast, as a matter of proper methodology, is expected to be objective, open to criticism and critique, subject to empirical testing and willing to entertain new theories where the old ones are found inadequate. I think that we can and should expect something more and different from scientists than we do from those who profess a belief in a religion.
One might immediately suspect that I am anti-science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps, you may say, I am just anti-scientist. That also is not true–although, perhaps, less categorically so. I am certainly not “anti” practicing scientists or, more precisely, “anti” scientists who are being scientists. However, I do have objections to scientists engaged in policy and political or moral debates to the extent that they ignore the limits of their own knowledge or, even more objectionably, purport to claim some special insight or expertise as scientists to declare what is wise or good or right. In all events, I think that we need to beware of the scientist who claims that answers (whether it is questions of global warming, Darwin’s theory of the origin of species, special relativity or the existence of God) are known with certitude.
I concluded in the course of my own formal education that both understanding and reason are promoted by an awareness of the methodological issues underlying the physical and social sciences. Asking the questions about what we are trying to do, how we are trying to do it and what we can realistically expect to result from those efforts will bring humility and sensitivity to discussions of science and of policy. I think that many heated confrontations, with abundant self-righteousness on both sides, arise out of what are essentially miscommunications–the proverbial “ships passing in the night.” However, this conclusion is very easy to state and generally by itself contributes nothing to the arguments or the attitudes of the participants. We need more than the simple assertion of the conclusion that opposing sides have different values and perspectives; we need to explore why and how it is that many debates over science, morals and public policy do, in fact, fail to engage meaningfully and seem to generate only heat, not enlightenment. Matters of methodology and the theory of knowledge should be taught–indeed, should be an essential part of a liberal education. It is possible that greater familiarity with methodological issues could substantial improve communication or, at least, reduce glaring instances of miscommunication.
In pursuit of my long-standing interests and utilizing my experience, I have re-examined the writings that piqued my interest in the first place, then researched and read much more and, finally, tried to put the pieces together. I utilized mainly the more accessible writings of working scientists (and of mathematicians and philosophers of science), many of whose works were clearly intended for a lay audience. To be as current as possible, I have attended lectures and presentations by working scientists and tried to follow the new discoveries reported in the press and presented in leading journals. I have also relied on the works of leading science writers for history and context.
Naturally, I take full responsibility for all of the errors in the pages to follow. I regret the mistakes, but I hope that there are also many comments and conclusions with which knowledgeable readers can and will take issue but must finally concede are worthy of consideration. Otherwise, I did not do adequately the task that I set for myself.
In the end, the average engaged citizen does not need to know the actual science, but he or she would greatly benefit from an understanding of the nature of the limits and uncertainties about what we know and about how it is that we know what we think we know. I do not purport to provide answers, only to ask questions. Admittedly, I allowed myself a fair number of comments. Perhaps some of the comments will be useful in themselves; perhaps some will lead to observations by others that will be useful. In all events, I do hope that my work will be a constructive contribution to the search for understanding, whether by adding something to the substantive debate or by inducing others to become participants.
Note on format:
The reader will undoubtedly notice that I have included a large number of endnotes (footnotes having proved too difficult for multi-format publication) and have peppered the text with citations. In part, it is simply the lawyer in me showing. I intend the generous citations to be of assistance to the reader interested in sources. Ample citations are also used because I try hard not to assert on my own authority any facts. (The sources for the facts are clearly identified.) My task is to marshal evidence: to review, select and organize the "facts." Then I make arguments, draw inferences and ask questions. However, I caution the reader that this approach is not a guarantee of objectivity. The marshaling of evidence is an iterative process and inevitably involves personal prejudices and hunches and wishes. (Thus, I find the statements "the facts speak for themselves" and "we go where the facts lead us" to be naïve, if not downright disingenuous.)
My citations are a modified form of legal citation. For example, where a reference is to the same source just cited I use id., rather than the more conventional ibid. And, cf. essentially means "compare". The other signs are pretty much self-explanatory.
The endnotes are something of a copout. When you cannot figure out how to include information in a coherent narrative, drop a footnote (or endnote)! Yet, they are important. They contain a lot of information and some commentary on the text. I do recommend them to the reader.
Note to the second edition:
After I was diagnosed with ALS in 2015, I panicked and rushed the first edition to print. Over the subsequent months, however, I fortunately was able to reread what I had done. In the process, I revised a number of poorly worded sentences, corrected multiple typographical errors, deleted obvious redundancies and removed several paragraphs that I thought were unnecessary distractions. I also reorganized a few portions to convey better the points I was trying to make. Finally, I added a handful of new references to materials that appeared subsequent to the first edition. Many, many more could have been included, but I just picked the ones I thought most interesting. The result is this second edition, a bit shorter and, hopefully, somewhat more satisfying to read.
Introduction
The human endeavors collectively characterized today as science undoubtedly constitute one of the grandest and most distinctive achievements of our species. Indeed, along with artistic expressions in the visual and musical spheres, science may be deemed a defining characteristic of Homo sapiens.
In the pages that follow, I shall discuss and explore the nature and the limits of our scientific knowledge. My focus is on science—that is, on our attempts to ascertain the truth about our physical environment and to understand the phenomena we observe, directly and indirectly, in the world. I have only occasional things to say about technology—meaning the skills to predict, control and manipulate the physical world around us to and for our benefit. I certainly do not mean to suggest that technology is of lesser importance; the practical consequences of our technological endeavors on the lives of human beings have been nothing short of stupendous. Indeed, much of the prestige attached to science and scientists in our modern world is undoubtedly a reflection of the acknowledged significance of man’s technological achievements.
But, science is distinct from technology; it is different in its objectives and its methodologies. Sometimes, technological advances have been a result of scientific discovery; sometimes, technological advances have preceded and even prompted scientific progress, presenting the challenge of understanding and explaining why the technological achievement actually worked. However, questions about the extent to which new scientific theories resulted in technological innovation or important new theories followed the achievements of practical inventors are not relevant to the issues pursued herein.
The