Science

When I was a teenager, I was exposed, at about the same time, to Christianity and to science. My family was not well educated, but neither were they indoctrinated in religion. The two "magisteria", (in Gould's words), were not things that featured in the family culture.

School introduced me to both. Believers made a great song and dance about what they believed. Scientists demonstrated that the knowledge they did have was true. This was something that the believers could not do. I even went to confirmation classes, eventually becoming confirmed, in the hope that religionists could impart some key knowledge that they seemed to hint that only they possessed. It was never forthcoming.

What is it that is superior about scientific knowledge? For a start, it is not considered sacred. Einstein, when asked about a book attempting to criticise relativity, retorted by saying “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”

Scientific knowledge, while not absolutely certain, is superior to all other claimed 'systems' of knowledge precisely because it has run the ruthless gauntlet of attempts to discredit and disprove it. It's how we gain confidence in its veracity. How many religious notions are prepared to offer themselves up for such pitiless scrutiny?

How else can we have confidence in scientific knowledge? Apart from it surviving the trials by fire, we have other guidelines.

Pragmatics: After John Dewey and others. Science works. See also "Parsimony" below.

Consilience: It seems that any scientific notion that is compatible with already well-established science, and makes sense in terms of it, is more likely to be correct.

Parsimony: A simple explanation that takes into account all the relevant data and is contradicted by none of it is the one to go with. Why complicate things unnecessarily?

Elegance: Related to the above two, but it does seem that beautifully simple explanations have been the most successful ones.

Intuitivity: This is an example of what is not a good guideline. Nature is what it is, not necessarily what we expect it to be. 

Examples:

1) The Earth is not flat and immovable, even if on superficial inspection it appears to be. (Can you feel it move?)

2) The perceived speed of light is not dependent on the speed of the source and the speed of the observer. Instead, it is time and space that 'give way' to conspire to give us the same result in any conditions. As Dawkins said,

"Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye, or more than meets the all-too-limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-size objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa. In the face of these profound and sublime mysteries, the low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudophilosophical poseurs seems unworthy of adult attention." (What is True? The Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins)

3) And of course, evolution. Many deny it because they cannot understand it and are reluctant to  correct their misunderstandings. Mail me if you want to learn more. barry.desborough@gmail.com