Science and sinking ships

I have often been disappointed by the way people think of science. Many see science as some kind of revealed truth about the mechanical workings of the world. To them, science is a growing body of indisputable facts. Others are more cynical: they think of science as a scam -- to put it bluntly -- to dazzle the untutored with jargon and convenient statistics. For them, science is the name of the trade by which the self-serving dupe the gullible.

Both these perceptions share the same error. They think of science as a kind of prescribed truth, not a lot different from religion. One half trusts the truth, the other distrusts the prescription.

It is neither truth nor prescription.

Science is a process. A process of discovery and tentative explanations. It is a healthy regimen of disciplined and critical analysis. It begins by taking a cluster of observed phenomena, and trying to find an explanation (a "hypothesis") that fits as many as possible. At the same time, it tests these observations to ensure that they are not illusions in some way.

When a hypothesis is found to explain virtually all the observations satisfactorily, it is termed a "theory". If a theory stands the passage of time, and is not contradicted by new observations, it tends to gain widespread acceptance, and people begin to take that theory for granted. A widely accepted theory is a "paradigm", because people, having taken it for granted, act within its framework.

Paradigms tend to be mistaken for "truth" because many of them last generations. We can live out a whole lifetime without seeing it rebutted.

But a paradigm never explains absolutely all the observed phenomena. By necessity, a paradigm is a generalisation in some way. There will be exceptions sooner or later. A good paradigm has very few. A poor paradigm is as holey as Swiss cheese: observed phenomena keep popping up which it does not adequately explain, or else can only do so with strenuous contortions to logic. Then when a new theory comes along that does a better job of explaining the empirical observations, the old paradigm is consigned to the scrapheap.

Let's take some big examples:

People once used to think of the world as a flat piece of land (and sea).. Look at the ancient maps from East and West. Listen to how managers still say, "our products are exported to all four corners of the earth".

That flat-earth explanation was even expanded to include a painted ceiling for the sky, while in the East, they saw terra firma as supported by so many elephants or giant tortoises.

Don't laugh at it. It was accepted as truth for centuries. But now we know it was a paradigm, based on the simple human observation: that wherever one looked with our eyes, the earth appeared flat.

Unfortunately, exceptions kept on cropping up. Many readers will know the oft-quoted example of a sailing ship's masts appearing over the horizon before the body of the vessel. Then a few foolhardy sailors insisted on sailing around the world, and had the audacity to succeed!

The old paradigm couldn't explain these events, but the upstart new theory ("the earth is round, silly!") did, so it supplanted the old.

Having accepted that the earth was a sphere, people began to see the sun and the planets as other spherical bodies in space too, but circling the earth. Again, this was based on the observation that the sun, the moon and the nearby planets described arcs in the sky with their movements. It was also derived from various religious pronouncements, but we'll leave that aside for now.

As more and more detailed observations were made of the planets' trajectories -- the scientific process also requires all observations to be scrutinised for over-simplification or illusion -- it became increasingly obvious that they were not circling the earth. They had really idiosyncratic paths through the seasons. The old paradigm of the earth being the centre of the universe could not explain these observations.

Then Copernicus and Galileo proposed a new hypothesis: that the planets, including our dear mother earth, circled the sun! For that, Galileo got into serious trouble with the Church -- heresy, subversion of the moral order and all that -- and he had to recant. But the weight of evidence soon became so overwhelming that within another generation the new paradigm had superseded the old.

Yet that particular story does not end here, by the way. The Copernican/Galilean paradigm has in turn been superseded too, from observations of other stars and galaxies. The sun is no longer considered the centre of the universe.

The scientific process is not restricted to physics, astronomy or chemistry. It is a valuable method for trying to understand the world in all its aspects. It is equally useful in social studies, psychology, economics and murder mysteries.

Take the last. The classic way to solve one is to collect all the clues, verify each one in turn and come up with an explanation that is consistent with all the evidence. No use asserting "The butler did it!" when the evidence does not fit.

Take another hoary paradigm: "A woman's place is in the home". Remember that one? Many people still subscribe to it. And with it came notions of the weaker sex, or some instinctive motherliness. But what was that paradigm based on? On the observation that for many centuries, women's responsibilities were mainly domestic. But a critical analysis of the social regimen in history upsets the cause and effect. It was the theory that confined women to the home, hence women stayed at home.

The last two centuries have seen increasing numbers of exceptions to that rule. Women, through being better educated than ever before and given more opportunities, have become top scientists, prime ministers, fine violinists, university professors and extraordinary athletes. They have also shown themselves to be capable of being defiant dictators and abusive mothers.

So that's another paradigm that's been holed below the waterline, and sinking fast.

If that ship cannot be saved, what about this one:

Homosexuality is a sinful abomination. It is unnatural. It is a lifestyle choice that must be condemned and outlawed because it undermines the fabric of society, and we have to deter young minds from being seduced by it.

Now, here comes some very inconvenient observations:

1. through all societies, through all ages, a certain percentage of the population have been homosexual, while others have been bisexual.

2. this trait seems to spring by itself, occurring naturally every generation.

3. the vast majority of homosexuals say that they never chose to be so; to them, it's a given condition.

4. the vast majority of homosexuals say that their orientation cannot be changed no matter how much one wishes it to be otherwise.

5. the vast majority of them will tell you it is not just a superficial lifestyle, like the lifestyles of the rich and famous, a matter of willful indulgence or acquired manners; it goes deep into the very core of their self-identity and the human need for love and affection.

6. homosexual orientation first appears in teenage years (or even earlier as some recent studies report), usually before first physical sex.

7. many adolescent boys have physical sex before they are sure of their sexuality; some have homosex but then grow up to be heterosexual, others have heterosex and then grow up to be homosexual; there is no evidence that they are much influenced one way or the other.

8. studies have shown that children raised by homosexual parents are as well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents, nor is there any greater tendency for the former children to turn out homosexual.

9. some of the greatest individuals who have contributed to civilisation, writers, scientists, admirals, political leaders, painters, architects, engineers, teachers, explorers, were homosexual or bisexual. Look around the world today, and there are plenty more examples.

How does the old battleship of a paradigm stay afloat with these waves of evidence washing over it? Not very well, I dare say. Well then, try a new lifeboat of a theory: perhaps homosexuality is plain normal variation? Like differing balding tendencies. Like speaking different languages.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None