Re: Science and Truth...

I might be getting a bit off the point here, but maybe not. All this talk about scientific "truths" makes me want to interject with another difference between science and religion/philosophy that I think is being overlooked. That is, science isn't really in the business of finding Truth with a capital T. Rather, science is in the business of building models. It isn't a trivial distinction.

It's perhaps clearest to me when I'm teaching the basics of quantum chemistry - and here I mean only the simplest of introductions with nearly no math - to high school students who have only ever thought of electrons as particles before, who were taught in elementary school that atoms looked like tiny solar systems, with the electrons whizzing around a stationary, sun-like nucleus. The brightest students tend to confront me when I tell them that they must now begin to treat the electrons as waves. "So everything we learned before was wrong?" they'll demand, annoyance and betrayal plain on their faces. "Why were we forced to memorize stuff that's wrong? And how do we know that what you're telling us now is right? Are we gonna go to college and be told that what you're telling us now is also wrong? Well, that sucks."

It's a legitimate sentiment from students who have, for years, been getting As in biology by memorizing the textbooks, As in physics by plugging numbers into formulas, and As in chemistry by performing some combination of those two, and all the while being told they're brilliant for being able to do it so masterfully. These are the students who have mastered the game, who want to be fed the information clearly so they can memorize it and spit it out on the test. It's a shame, because they're also the students who are capable of appreciating the material on a more meaningful level, but whom the system rewards with As and scholarships for their mindlessness.

/edu-rant

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that students' questions about how the particle-model of the atom is "wrong" betrays a misunderstanding of what science does. The particle model of the atom isn't "wrong." Better stated, it's a less sophisticated model. It didn't explain certain experimental results, so scientists found a more predictive mathematical construct to describe the election: a wave. So, then, I'm asked by my kids, "so an electron is a wave?" And then I'm forced to say well, not always. Sometimes, we still use the particle model. It all depends on the conditions of the experiment. And then, naturally, they go nuts on me. But which one is right!? Is the electron a particle or a wave? It can't be both! Both can't be right! What's the TRUTH! (read: what do I write down in my notes as the correct answer to a multiple choice question asking me what an electron is?)

And there's the misunderstanding again. Models aren't about truth. They're about predicting experimental results. If you want to talk truth, I tell them, treat your brain to a proper class in philosophy. An electron is neither a particle nor a wave; it's an electron. It's something so alien to us that we can't imagine what it is. But we do know how to describe its behaviour and that is good enough for science, if not for the inquiring mind of a tenth grader.

All this to illustrate how science and religion differ in their criteria for considering an idea "true." In science, we mean a good model that reliably predicts the results of experiments, usually if not always with the caveat that models are imperfect and in a constant state of refinement. Religion goes beyond that, laying claim to metaphysical truth, addressing lofty universals like goodness, justice, divinity, love. In my eyes, this makes science a far more humble enterprise, if not sometimes unsatisfying emotionally.

I suppose this is why I'm having a hard time entertaining a discussion which compares belief in science to belief in religion. Science is not to be believed the way religion is to be believed; I don't think the two even ask the same questions. The looseness of language causes confusion.

Any help in further clarifying this - if anyone out there understands what I'm trying to say (too little coffee tonight), would be very welcome.