Caveat: Edward de Bono, founder of lateral thinking, remarked that he never debates. He said that two parties cannot agree primarily because they have either different information, or different perception, or different values. I interpret Bono as meaning that recognizing our differences and trying to view from the other party’s perspective is better than debating. With regards to the views I express in my blogs, I take Bono’s advice to heart.
Science is one of the most abused words in modern history. It is commonly associated with advances in technologies and the comfort and freedom those new technologies bring to humankind. When the word of “science” is mentioned, one usually thinks of digital devices, aerospace, telecommunications, bio engineering, high-tech homes, etc.
Moreover, science is commonly associated with “progress” and “development.” In many mainstream cultures around the world, science is viewed as the savior of the modern world. Science is pitched against superstitions and things mostly coming from traditions and human emotions. It is upheld as the guiding light in humankind’s further evolution. Anything labeled “scientific” is easily given the aura that it is “true” and thus “advanced” and “trustworthy.”
Let’s take a vote. How many people agree with the following statement? “Cultural things such as arts, movies…are interesting. They enrich our lives. However, if you want our country to be rich and strong, we need to develop science and technologies, which are the basis of our further advancement.” We hear such statement or variations of it so routinely in mainstream Chinese media.
When I was given ideological lectures in high school, I was told by my teacher that Marxism is science. I whole-heartedly subscribed to that view. In the past 50 years or so, we’ve got academic disciplines developed that induct them into the family of science away from the traditional category of “humanities.” We’ve got “social sciences” now. Study of politics becomes “political science.” As a political science major, I know my friends are secretly amused when I say I study political “science.” We’ve got management science now. We have “organizational sciences.” Economics has long been regarded as a sub-stream of “science.” We’ve got plenty of economic statisticians disguised as “economists” bask in the mainstream media and discharge “authoritative” analyses of current affairs.
In the world of social sciences in the United States, there has always been an odd feeling of inferiority among the social scientists that, somehow, they are only pretenders. As an economist sits on the high table together with rocket scientists and computer wizards, a political scientist looks at him full of awe and jealousy – “When do I get to be recognized as a true scientist?” he grudges.
I internalized the view that science is the savior of the modern world as I grew up in China. I chose to be a science major, as against a humanities major, when we split classes in senior high. The prevalent view at the time was that a science major is stronger. History, philosophy and literature are good subjects but they are for the weaker minds. I never quite came to ask myself the question “what is science” until graduate study in the States. In hindsight, I believed in science like it is a religion. I will come back to this point later on in my blogs.
So, what is science and what does it essentially mean? If you say it means new technologies, a caveman made up a beautiful and very handy stone spade ten thousand years ago and would you call him a “scientist?” I sit in my armchair and think of a grand all-encompassing theory that explains why a raindrop falls on my shoulder. Am I a scientist?
What I am doing is actually the first step in any scientific research. That is, to define. We had a whole semester in grad school that was devoted to the question “what is science.” It is therefore impossible for me to provide a “scientific” analysis of what science is in the limited space here. I will lay out my understanding below for the simplicity of this essay.
Science is a method one uses to derive knowledge of the world. In its essence, science is a methodology and the bulk of knowledge we come to acquire about the world by using this methodology. It is generally thought that Galileo is the first scientist in this sense. We all may remember the story that he dropped two iron balls of different weight from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa to test the theory of gravity. Before Galileo, philosophers and theologists observed something and thought of a theory to explain it. But Galileo did something different. He observed something, thought of a theory to explain it, and conducted experiments to test the validity of the theory. How do him and scientists after him test the validity of a theory? Well, they use logic to derive a number of statements from the theory and then conduct experiments to see if those statements are consistent with what actually happen. If what the theory says will happen actually happens, then it shows that the theory is valid, i.e., the theory has “predictive power.”
We all may know that Einstein’s theory of relativity was given a huge boost in validity when an astronomical phenomenon his theory predicted was actually observed. When this happens, people exclaim: “Amazing! He can predict! What he said is actually true!”
At this point, two things to note. First, logic is inextricably linked to modern science and the development of it. When we use the scientific methodology, we automatically agree with and use the various principles in logic. For what those principles are, please enroll in a logic class. Secondly, we have a “scientific” name for the statements derived from a theory. They are called “hypotheses.” Science develops by following the route from observations, to hypothesis formulation, to hypothesis testing in new observations, to new hypothesis formulation, and cycle along like this. This process is famously laid out in Karl Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery and I am Popper’s follower with regards to my view of science.
A key concept in Popper’s understanding of science is “falsification.” A theory is only scientific if it can be falsified, i.e., if conditions are defined under which the theory may be empirically observed to be false. For example, if Galileo said the gravity on the two iron balls of different weight is the same, a hypothesis is that the two iron balls should fall onto the ground at the same time. If they do not fall onto the ground at the same time, then Galileo’s theory is wrong. So, Galileo’s theory of gravity can be empirically falsified. Then, we do an experiment. The two balls fall onto the ground at the same time. The hypothesis is confirmed and the theory is tested to be valid.
Take another example. An economist uses his economic theory to explain the rise and fall of the Hong Kong stock market. How do we know if his theory is valid? Well, we may derive from his theory a hypothesis that the market is going to rise tomorrow. The empirical observation may only have three results: 1) market rises; 2) market falls; 3) market stays unchanged (which is highly unlikely). So, his economic theory is falsifiable because we know the conditions under which the theory can be tested to be invalid, i.e. when 2) or 3) happens. When the market opens and if it rises, his economic theory is tested to be valid! If not, then, sorry, it may be thrown into the gutters, although I know few economists in the world dare predict the rise and fall of a stock market. If a theory cannot tell us under what conditions it may be false, how do we know if it is valid? This is basically against the principles of logic. Thus, it is important to bear in mind that, consciously or unconsciously, we have all subscribed to the principles of logic when we use the scientific method. In other words, science becomes irrelevant if we say logic is “bull shit.” If we say that, we will be called “unreasonable” or simply “mad!”
I love the movie Matrix. Anyone else loves it? Matrix starts with the hypothesis that our minds are actually controlled by super machines that take control of the earth. We know and experience our world through our senses – what we see, what we hear, what we smell, what we touch and what we taste. Our senses send signals to our mind, which then tell us what the world is like. What if Matrix is true? What if we ARE controlled by super machines? Well, the super machines plug signals into our mind, which then tell us what we see, hear, smell, etc. It all makes sense, right? It does except that this hypothesis is not scientific because it cannot be falsified. In other words, if you don’t believe in science, you can perfectly believe in the Matrix world.
Before I conclude my discussion of the scientific method, one important part in science is the process by which a theory is formulated. Well, a scientific method uses logic to formulate a theory. The logical methods we use are deduction and induction. Deduction is deriving a statement from observations. Induction is making a hypothesis about what may happen from a theory. These are common-sense methods. This dog has four legs and bark. That dog has four legs and bark. Millions and thousands of millions of dogs have four legs and bark. From these observations, we come to the statement that “dogs have four legs and bark.” Then, we learn that our neighbor has a dog. We hypothesize that our neighbor’s dog has four legs and bark, too. Our neighbor opens the door. There! You see? The little cutie has four legs and bark and is wagging his tail at me.
All scientific theories come about in this way. Doctor tests a new medicine on thousands of rats and it works to cure the disease (however, in real world, we are only dealing with a probability, i.e., 98% of the rats are cured, etc.). Doctor tests this new medicine on a few hundred human patients and it works to cure the disease (again, a probability in real world). A-ha, a new medicine is discovered to cure this disease! Hallelujah to science! Rocket science, the same way – it works, it works, it’s worked in hundreds of missions (till it does not work once).
Newton’s classical physics is followed as a powerful theory of the world till it fails to explain the behavior of electrons.
Marxist social theory begins by saying that facts since time immemorial show that human beings first eat and dress and then concern themselves with things like art and religion. The conclusion is that economy is forever the foundation of social development and therefore determines the “social superstructure.” The Chinese government’s statement that “eating is a fundamental human right” is a modern-day great-grandson of that theory.
Karl Popper submits that no theory is ever “true.” It is only “valid” as far as the latest hypothesis testing shows it to be. To use a colorful parable to demonstrate what Popper means. The prince goes out to see swans and everywhere he goes, he sees beautiful white swans. However, he can never conclude that all swans are white because there may well be a swan out there he has not seen and is black. In the same vein, Adam Smith’s economic theory was regarded as true till it could not save humankind from the Great Depression.
If science is worshiped as the guiding light of the modern world and the “only” way we should follow, the glaring limitation of science as shown above is truly scary. It is true. It is true…till it is not true. What do we do when we find out it is no longer “valid?” Events such as the Great Depression, the World Wars, AIDS, cancer, earthquakes we failed to predict, global warming… Do we just wait till the next calamity happens?
Two things about the scientific method worry us and cast a long shadow over its supposed “savior” status. First, science follows logic. Second, science is only valid as far as the latest hypothesis testing shows it to be.
We human beings are prisoners of our consciousness. No one can fly out of his/her body and see what it actually is. Science is only an extension of our consciousness and a particular way we use to understand and interpret the world we live in. Nothing scientifically derived is ever “true” in the sense that we are only pretending it to be true because it “works.” We are like a gardener tending her garden on a small piece of land. In the garden, trees and plants and flowers line in order. In the gardener’s eyes, things are running according to a rule. However, the vast space encircling the garden is dark, infinite and unknown. The darkness is also inducing the growth of creatures inside the garden, which evade our logical eyes.
Modern science grew out of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason in Europe. Before that, Europeans rely on the Christian faith to understand and interpret the world. In China, it was Confucism, Taoism, Bhudism and other belief systems about the Heaven and Earth, although some Ming philosophers experimented with scientific methods. As humankind gradually learnt of the way of science, it developed euphoria about the power science gives to humankind to live no longer in the shadow of God but perhaps independently of him. In Nietzsche’s words, “God is dead.” One powerful theory after another was formulated by great minds, which was attempted to explain the world through scientific means. On the back of this, we were indoctrinated in the beliefs of “positivism” through popular education. Positivism is the happy belief that, with the development of science, our lives will only become better. There will be hiccups on the road but, in general, humankind is advancing upward and forward. We may never learn the truth but we are ever closer to it every step of the way.
Positivism is still a powerful guiding belief and moral code in our society. Look what we human beings have achieved with the tools of science! We have landed on the moon, mapped out human DNA, made numerous animal clones, grown genetically altered foods, and linked the world by digital communication. In the West, frustration with positivism and doubts about it have grown stronger in recent years.
There were reports that one out of every five residents in Hong Kong displays some symptoms of depression. Hong Kong has one of the world’s highest suicide rates and is especially depressing when the weather is gloomy and the skyscrapers are grey. Interestingly, Hong Kong being one epitome of capitalism in full throttle, positivism is a prevalent belief among the city’s middle-class workers. “Work hard, play hard, earn more money and life becomes better,” to simply put it. So far, science has not given us a cure of the depressive illness. One psychiatrist said to me, “in terms of humankind’s knowledge of the causes of depression, we are still in kindergarten.” We understand our brain and mind much less than we understand rocket science. When we probe into the field of consciousness, sub-consciousness and unconsciousness, predictability is a luxury word. Successful control of depression has so far resulted from a combination of three treatments: 1) medical, 2) social (support of loved ones, social support groups, etc.), and 3) religious (soul searching, etc.).
We were brainwashed to worship science. It is associated with enlightenment, progress, development, success, happiness, sunshine… Science has its part in the world but it is not all of it. I have given up the belief that science saves us from misery. At some point in life, darkness grips us – doubts, feeling of unworthiness, sadness, despair, and pure evil. They exist (just like we have right hand and left hand). Science, as a tool, tells us little how to cope with the dark side.
