14 DAY TRIAL // I think that one of the main reasons why many people fail to appreciate science is that they don't realize that science is only one single story. There are many authors who reveal parts of this story and whom often have different interpretations of one chapter or another, but despite the various interpretations, the thing which is being interpreted is a single, unique story. All the bits of information and all the sciences are like pieces of a single puzzle. But this puzzle is not like a static picture, but more like a novel that's filled with action, suspense and surprises.
I'm often troubled when I see how various people fail to understand this and think they can take from science only the parts they like and simply declare the rest to be false. They ignore that in science everything has been obtained with the help of the same method. This method is very simple and commonsensical if you think a little bit about it.
The idea is the following: Each time you observe something, anything, you can come up with many different explanations. And different people usually come up with all sorts of different explanations for the same event. Thus, the question is: How can you decide which interpretation is the best one, which one is better than the others? Each explanation has been designed to fit the already observed facts so you cannot decide which one is better if you confine yourself to those facts. All the explanations are all equally fit for the already observed facts.
Thus, the 'scientific method' involves a very simple idea: each explanation (or 'theory') has to make predictions or estimations about what will be observed in other situations. The scientific method is a betting contest. The explanation that succeeds making good predictions must be in some way better that all the others that have made bad predictions. It cannot be just a mere coincidence. That's way too unlikely.
If I tell you this is what's going to happen because I think the reality is in such and such way, and my prediction proves correct, you might acknowledge that my world view is not entirely off track. It has a certain utility in helping me making good estimations about things that haven't happened yet. It reduces the uncertainty. It is valuable for certain purposes.
What all sciences do is simply apply this method in different areas. Astronomers look at stars and planets and asteroids and so on; biologists at plants and animals and fungi; psychologists and sociologists at humans; chemists look at various substances; and so on. But the point is: these different areas are not naturally separated from each other, there's no sharp border between them. They are studied in separate university departments - but that doesn't mean nature itself is separated in the same way. And the fact that all these different areas of science have fuzzy borders and each intervenes in the neighbors' businesses, forces them to agree with each other. This process leads to the creation of a single story - the story science tells.
Another thing many humanists try to do is to place arbitrary borders for science. They often say: "Science could never explain this or that; this is the field of philosophy or religion." For example it was often said that science cannot explain the human soul because science only deals with the physical aspects of the universe. But why are those people so certain that the universe is so drastically separated into physical aspects and spiritual aspects? This sounds like they're taking much too seriously the separation existing in the universities between humanities and sciences. In fact, sciences such as neurology or sociology have no problem entering these "restricted" areas. And I don't think there can be any problems that can be a priori declared out of the bounds of science. You can say what's outside today's science, but we have no idea what the future will bring.
The point I want to make is that the 'scientific method' does not necessarily have anything to do with science itself or with present day science. Science is just the conscious and uncompromising application of this method. But this method is basically the only way one can decide whether a certain opinion is better that some other opinion, regardless whether the opinion refers to clouds and insects or to God or soul. The alternative to the 'scientific method' is to say "this is true because I say so" or to say "this is true because it's written in some book". In other words, the alternative to the 'scientific method' is always the appeal to some sort of authority.
There is an important point here. According to a scientific way of thinking power is always the consequence of knowledge. If you discover what is true, this allows you to make accurate predictions about one thing or another and thus allows you to have control over more things. From a scientific perspective, knowledge is like a tool that makes possible the achievement of more and more outrageous desires. You want to fly? Ok, here it is the theory of aerodynamics that allowed the creation of better airplanes. You want to reach 80? Ok, here is the theory of evolution that allowed a better theory of germs, which allowed the creation of better medicine. And so on.
On the other hand, the alternative view is that knowledge is the consequence of power. For example, Jesus Christ or Buddha had somehow miraculously achieved super-human powers over things and over the human soul and in consequence they were able to say what is true and what is false. And we, who don't have their powers, have to simply accept what they said as "revealed truth". In my opinion this is just nonsense. The so-called knowledge of religion does not increase your power over anything, does not allow you to make any prediction, does not help you in any way whatsoever. There's only one kind of power religion offers: the power of some men over the flock of "believers". And this has always been this way.
Why does religion declare things like sex or having desires to be "evil"? The reason is simple - it's because these are inescapable and essential aspects of human life and, by declaring them "evil", religion automatically declares virtually all humans "evil". And if all humans are "evil" or have "evil" urges they, supposedly, need "salvation". And, supposedly, religion is there to offer it. At a price, of course. And the price is not money, it's the preservation of certain power structures.
But what science does and always has done is to threaten these existing power structures because nobody can tell in advance from where the new knowledge will come. That's why science always has been and always will be "evil".
Photos: 'Religion Overthrowing Heresy and Hatred' by Pierre Le Gros; Mayan god Chac holding a human heart in his left hand and a drinking cup in his right; Christian believers in the "Power of the Cross".
