I found Bob Williams’ comment (see C99/30, above, Ed.) on whether truth only applies to science, very interesting. It also goes on to beg the question as to what we mean by science and how we discuss other areas of interest including religion, ethics, philosophy and art. We may describe many things that are conducted in a rigorous manner according to a set of rules as being scientific, e.g. the science of vacuum cleaner design. On this basis many things can be classified as science. I am sure one can be said to study religion in a scientific way. Or do we wish to restrict science to areas where a statement can be tested by repeatable experiment ? (By the way in all this I presume mathematics is not a science, it has nothing to do with reality itself, it is a language in which statements can be expressed but this does not make the statement true. To say that mathematics is truth would seem to me to be tautologous, at best.) So the theory of gravity or the attraction of masses can be tested and held to be true within the limits to which it has been tested. But what about anthropology, and more to the point, theories relating to the origin of the human species. In what way do these fit into the definition of science ? These appear to be attempts to explain observed phenomena, which are not open to repeated controlled experimentation. We may be able to rate these theories on how well they fit the observed phenomena, but this is not proof of veracity. This seems to me to be a different order of science to physics and chemistry. (The fact that a theory may make use of sciences such as geology, does not of itself make the theory scientific in nature.)
Yes, it was I who suggested that theories of origins of the human species are not necessarily best taught in Biology classes. To avoid any paranoia from the List, I am not suggesting that they should be left out of the curriculum. Putting it in with Biology tends to imply, by default, that it is a theory of equal scientific standing. Putting it in with History may offer advantages. Sooner or later we learn that history is not about facts but the interpretation of data. History is full of theories that we have developed to explain significant events. What really were the causes of the American War of Independence ?
Perhaps we would, additionally, like to define science as observations about real phenomena that are expressible in the language of mathematics, as this alone provides rigour. In the pure sciences we have Laws like the law of gravity or Boyle’s Law. However, in common speech we also talk about the law of the jungle. It seems to me that the laws of evolution are of this second type. The law of natural selection is a piece of intuition about the way things generally work out, not a precise mathematical formula expressing the way things always turn out (within given constraints). Are these sorts of laws science ? Does it matter if we use science in a loose manner ? Well I think it does because the word science implies to most people a halo of proof.
What can we then say about theories of origins ? We cannot say that they are proven or provable by scientific experiment. We cannot say they are laws of science or mathematical models of some aspect of reality. They represent hypotheses about the way the world is seen to be. This sort of hypothesis cannot even be expressed in terms of mathematical probability as we really only have one interconnected piece of data to observe. These sorts of hypotheses are more normally the sort tested in a court of law. How much evidence is there to support the hypothesis ? How much is there against ? Are there other hypotheses that would explain the evidence ? The first problem with trying a theory of origins is that it would be difficult to find a jury that had not already prejudged the issue to some extent. Assuming such a jury existed could they bring in a definite guilty verdict that, say, Darwin’s theory of evolution (or 7 day’s creation) is the undoubted cause of the way the world is today ? I doubt it. A guilty verdict would require conviction beyond reasonable doubt. It is not enough to say that theory X is the most likely culprit or the best we have come up with so far.
We are left therefore with theories of origins that are not subject to scientific or mathematical proof and not provable in a court of law. This seems just to leave personal subjective judgement that one or other theory is the best fit, in some non-mathematical sense, with the data or, perhaps, with some other worldview we may happen to hold about life and the cosmos.
But, I hear you say, Although I may not be able to definitely prove that theory X is correct, I can definitely prove theory Y is incorrect. However, I would suggest that even this is more difficult than it sounds if we are looking for conclusive proof. The most popular candidate for being definitely incorrect, I guess, is the literal 7-day creation of Genesis 1,2. This may not appeal to our 20th century senses but is it impossible ? The fact that it does not cover dinosaurs and fossils may show that it is incomplete, but then it doesn’t claim to be complete. However unpalatable a theory of origins may appear to be, e.g. we are all descended from spacemen, if we can’t prove it wrong, what scientific reason do we have for not giving it equal weight with, say, Darwin’s theory of evolution ?
We now come to Theo Todman’s dream solution, not so far appearing in the printed dialogue of the list and, not so far as I am aware (Theo), actually formulated. How do we find a way of ranking the likelihood of competing hypotheses that are beyond mathematical analysis and scientific proof / disproof ? The first to appear out of the tool bag is usually Occam’s Razor. If we have to choose, let’s give preference to the most simple and elegant hypothesis. (Mind you I don’t see why we don’t also reach for Pascal ’s Wager and say, if we must choose, we might as well choose the one with the best benefit package for us personally!)
OK, Astronauts seems a fairly simple and elegant theory to me. But, as theories go it only seems to deal with a minor part of the problem. What, I am really interested in is where the astronauts came from and how they came into being. I am interested in the true origin more then the intermediate stages. What caused the cause to exist ? It seems to me that sooner or later we come up against a major problem with theories of origins: you must come to a cause that is self-causing, which is of course impossible. Attempts to prove that something came from nothing break the laws of language and logic by which they are expressed. Now, I will use Occam’s Razor and suggest that if we have to have impossible items in our theory, we should try to minimise the number to one - which we can call the self-causing cause or God, if you are that way inclined. It may offend both camps to suggest that God could have been a blind impersonal equation, and vice versa, but it is interesting none the less. Does anybody on the List not believe in the existence of at least one self-causing cause ? If not, how not ?
So, I now have a preference for a theory of origins, which starts from a self-causing cause and works forward in a simple and elegant manner. But now I come to another problem that, even with the aid of Occam’s Razor, I don’t see that 7 days of Genesis 1,2 or Darwin’s theory of evolution, or many of their derivatives, fail this test.
How, then, do I rationally choose between the remaining candidate theories for the origins of the species and the cosmos ? Perhaps I should just go with the majority view - a million lemmings can’t all be wrong ! Alternatively, I can recognise that these theories don’t stand alone but have significant ideological associations. I would suggest that most people choose their theory of origins from the set of not-disproved theories with which they are ideologically in tune and, in the absence of any better method (Theo or other List members please supply?), I would suggest this is fairly sensible. This, of course, begs the question as to how you choose your ideology, but I will leave that for another day.
I would like to return to the question of if and how any theories of origins should be taught in schools. This is tied into the whole subject of the curriculum as a whole. Hopefully by the age of 11 most children will have grasped all they need to know about how to read, write and use the four basic functions of arithmetic. This then leaves several years of schooling to fill with other things that they will find useful in later life. Much of the current curriculum is fairly useless in this respect and there are glaring gaps about some really beneficial subjects. I would certainly like to see theories of origins included, preferably not under biology but under history, archaeology and anthropology or religious / ideological studies. I would also like to see children taught how to think and reason and to understand the philosophy of science as well as science itself, if this is not too subtle (no comments please on whether I understand these subjects).
I don’t think it is right that children should be taught to repeat as fact something that is contrary to their own ideological position. I certainly objected at school to singing praise to a God I did not believe in and to having to serve in a military style cadet force. Similarly I don’t see why Fundamentalist Christian children should be forced to recite as fact theories of Darwinian evolution.
Peter Mansell