The problem with Science

I am not against science. It interests me as much as it does the next guy; in fact, I consider myself a bit of a Physics and Mathematics enthusiast. Things like Quantum physics, probability theory or game theory always fascinate me to no end. I also believe that scientific breakthroughs have saved many lives and made many more easier.

So I’m not one of those people who insist that God created all beings and Darwin’s theory of evolution is completely rubbish. But I agree with Dr. Freeman Dyson when he says that science is just yet another window for us to look out at the sky, and not the sky itself. I believe everyone, and scientists especially, must have a great respect and appreciation for the unknown.

But it seems there are people who apparently deem themselves scientists of higher caliber than Freeman Dyson himself, who insist that science explains everything, and anything non-scientific is ‘voodoo’ or ‘uncivilized’. I’m writing now about those people.

What is science, really? How do scientific theories come to be? There are two ways: deduced from previously accepted theories, or being the best explanation to a certain observed phenomenon. Obviously, if the latter method is faulty, then by induction the former is also unreliable at best. Now, we focus on showing that the ‘best explanation method’ is faulty.

It is quite easy to see, really. For simplicity, and without loss of generality, we ignore the case where there is an argument between two or more schools of thought that cannot settle on a theory, and look at the most basic process of creating a theory. When a phenomenon is observed, scientists try to derive explanations for how it happens, of course with arguments to support it, and then agree on one that is satisfactory to all, or at least the majority. Such an explanation then come to be known as a theory, and further scientific arguments and/ or theories can cite it as an accepted fact.

Something is wrong here. All we have at the end of the process is a "best explanation", the best attempt at understanding the nature of a happening. Ignoring the obvious argument on what constitutes as "the best" and how it is decided, we focus on the fundamental flaw in such a reasoning. A best attempt implies that within our collective pool of knowledge, we find something that is closest to explaining the matter at hand.

So in other words, because our limited knowledge at its best can only allow us to explain the phenomenon in a certain way, it is therefore the truth?

To understand it more intuitively, imagine the following conversation between myself and a science extremist, regarding one of the most fundamentally accepted scientific theory of all, Gravity.

- Me: If I throw this apple up, will it fall down?

- SE: Yes, of course.

- Me: Why?

- SE: Because of gravity.

- Me: And how do you know gravity exists?

- SE: Because otherwise, why do things fall? Do you have a better explanation?

- Me: Yes. Things fall because naughty little children ghosts pull them down.

- SE: That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. 

- Me: Really, why?

- SE: Okay, can you prove what you just said?

- Me: No, not even a little. But can you prove gravity exists?

And that leads to my central point. You cannot prove gravity exists. In fact, science cannot prove anything.

It can provide you with an overwhelmingly convincing explanation, and most of the times great additional perspectives to look at things, sure, but it cannot prove. Anyone who has written a mathematical proof knows what it means to be proven. "Beyond the shadow of a doubt" is not prove. In a proof, every statement has to follow directly, logically and inevitably from some previous statement, and even then, every result you get is only true within the scope of your assumptions. 

Take mathematics, for example. Though widely regarded as the symbol of logic, it is still only true under its own scope of assumptions; in other words, it is self-consistent, and nothing more. There are axioms of mathematics that mathematicians agree to assume true, in order to build a system of further theorems. In fact, if no axioms are assumed, there is no mathematics, plain and simple.

If you have any knowledge of basic symbol logic, consider the following example:

Given the two statements:

It rains.

If it rains, then every young man is a frog.

We can derive:

Every young man is a frog.

The result is stone-cold true and irrevocable. However, it is only true within the assumption scope of the two given statements. Well, hopefully that is; otherwise we have more things to worry about.
 

 In conclusion, there exists no such thing as being "scientifically proven". Such a statement is fundamentally incorrect, since science itself cannot prove anything to start with, it can only give us the most convincing theory that our very limited collective pool of knowledge enables us to derive. And even if it could prove something to be true, it would still be meaningless as far as logic goes, because the result is only true within the scope of assumptions.

 So stay open and humble; stay aware that there are more possibilities than our mind can comprehend. Learn by hearts the words of the wise Socrates: "All I know is that I know nothing".
 

I am fascinated by science, but bothered by those who worship it. So the next time some science snoot tries to take you on and claims something he says is "scientifically proven", tell him: "All you are saying is, because you do not know any better, therefore this must be true. That is logically ridiculous. Also, you, young man, are a frog".

-K

Easy Zen

I'm starting to get really fond of tea. A dear friend of mine gave me a pound of premium  Ahmad as a gift last year, and a candle-heated pot of tea is fast becoming a bright spot of my day.

I much prefer tea over coffee now, just because of the notion attached to it - these days coffee carries the implication of an overwhelming hurry and a rush to push through things.

Think about it - when was the last time you drank coffee? No really, think about it. You got it? Okay. Now during that coffee you enjoyed, what else were you doing? Reading a book, perhaps? Finishing up your quick lunch break? Chatting with a friend?

If your answer is 'nothing', good. You win this round. But here is where it gets tricky: during that coffee, what else were you thinking about?

The correct answer should be 'nothing', and I'm almost 100% certain nobody passed that little test. And why should you - you are a citizen of a busy society with much to accomplish, you have a multitude of things to do, issues to worry about. Chances are you were grabbing a cup of coffee for that little extra boost to get on with your busy schedule or wrap up the last of your work. And your multitasking skills have been good enough to keep you up with all the things you need to do.

I have never been a fan of that word, 'multitasking'. I wonder if anyone has ever charted the productivity of multitasking versus focusing on one task at a time, within the same stretch of time. Maybe it is more efficient if someone has gotten very adept at juggling a few things at once, like my friend who brainstorms for a Physics problem while doing the dishes or my uncle having a beer watching a late ball game. Or you, drinking your coffee while writing the last paragraph of your paper.

But either way, productive or not, I am still against it. When you multitask, you are splitting your attention several ways. And while that may sound like a desirable (and sometimes even regarded as necessary) skill for the fast-paced world we live in, I don't believe it has done any good to our daily individual lives, as you were not putting your mind into what you were doing. You were not mindful.

Now, I'm not saying you were mindless, but you sure were not mindful. You didn't pay full attention to the task at hand, and thus missed many of its details and most importantly, missed out on the chance to enjoy it.

You are probably thinking: what could possibly be so enjoyable about writing that nonsensical political paper, or doing a mountain of dirty dishes? And the correct answer is another question: Why not?

Who laid down the rules that doing the dishes cannot be the most enjoyable thing of your day? Who governed how much joy you get from writing the paper? Who dictates what brings us happiness and what doesn't?

Don't say human instincts, because there are literally hundreds of millions of counterexamples out there. For instance, the people on Vanuatu island were named the happiest people on earth, and I guarantee you they don't have most of the things we attach with 'fun' and 'joy': They don't have TVs, computers, internet, video games, bars, night clubs. I'm eating a delicious doughnut right now and I doubt they have any 'comfort food' like this.

BBC says Vanuatu is a third-world country, a notion I assume to mean a less developed nation. People may say they are so happy only because they 'don't know anything' or are slightly 'ignorant'. In Vietnamese, we have a saying that many use to describe the residents of Vanuatu, and it roughly translates to "happy idiots" (with a demeaning tone).

I find it quite funny that these island citizens are regarded as 'less developed', in any way possible. Let me ask you this: what is the goal of your life?

Many will answer with the recent cliche "be happy".  I'm not going to delve into why being happy is suddenly becoming people's life goals - there have been enough explanation already.

Now, if the ultimate goal of your life is to be happy, and the Vanuatu people are already happy, wouldn't that make them light years ahead of you? They've accomplished what the rest of us 'civilized people' set out to do our entire lives!

Okay, so my point is: there is no rule as to what you can and cannot enjoy. It's all up to you; just make the decision to enjoy something, and you will, it just takes practice. The reason why I like my pot of tea so much is because once I've finished all the preparation and poured out my first cup of steaming hot Earl Grey, dropped in a large thin slice of lemon and a spoonful of honey, all I do is sit down and drink my tea. I don't read, I don't talk, I don't write my paper, I don't think. I am mindful of my tea, and my drinking of the tea.

And that's Zen, in a nutshell. If you can do that for 15 minutes, you have 15 minutes of Zen. If you can do it for 30 seconds, you have 30 seconds of Zen. It is that simple.

So be Zen, now. Why not?

And next time, your coffee just may taste differently.

-K