You Can’t Believe Your Eyes
We must be sure of
observations that are within the bounds of human perception, and skeptical if
what we observe appears to be opposite to that which is predicted. Yet we must
also be willing to recognize and accept valid experimental data that disproves
popular theories. Scientists have declared many theories to
be true and elevated them to the status of "law", only to discover
that future observations, often more accurate than the first, proved them
wrong. There are millions of examples of these errors. Perhaps the most
famous was the early contention that the earth was flat, a scientific
"fact" based on observations that appeared sound to early scholars,
which should not be so surprising to those of us who live in hilly country without
a visible horizon. What all of us, including scientists, must be aware of is
the ease in which we convert our theories into laws. Even if we believe our
minds are open, most of us grab onto favorite theories and assumptions. We
think of, and talk about, them as though there is no doubt they are true.
We should take a
minute to discuss the potentially "seductive" nature of
misinterpreted or misused "scientific proof". A portion of my high
school biology text described the propulsion method of certain one-cell
microscopic animals (protozoa) through water by declaring they waved a tail
like projection back and forth. The book had been careful to label many new
ideas as theories, but stated this particular description in absolute terms
since these one-celled animals had been observed for many, many years always
moving in exactly the same way. Anyone reading the text would believe, as
scientists and everyone else did, that there was absolutely no question how the
animals got around.
As I was watching
television almost ten years later I was surprised to hear of an accidental
discovery by a scientist looking at some protozoa. Trying to hold one still
under a microscope he held down the tail with a needle. Instead of the body of
the animal thrashing back and forth as it should have, he observed it to be
spinning around the tail. The tail was attached to the body by what was in
effect a small rotating joint, which acted like an electric motor spinning a
propeller (please see article
on motility of bacteria). Looking more closely, the scientist discovered
the tail was in fact shaped like a corkscrew. Because the microscopic view had
always been two dimensional, rather than three, the corkscrew motion looked
down on from above had appeared to be that of a wave. Since it was common to
find waving tails in larger animals, and since no one
had predicted, let alone observed, a 360 degree rotating joint, the thoughts
and conclusions of generations of scientists had been colored by conscious and
subconscious assumptions. What had been accepted as true turned out to be
false. But remember, what was found to be true had in fact always been true.
Similarly, I remember
reading an article by a learned scientist who was upset when a well-accepted
theory was challenged. He noted that of course it was a theory, just as all
scientific laws are really theories, but he then stated that the particular
theory was so well documented it was obviously true. It was and is not
"obviously true" for, as we have seen, no theory can be said to be
unquestionably true.
The theory was the
theory of evolution.
I have little trouble
with the idea of either accepting or rejecting evolution, for I can take it or
leave it as a part of the physical explanation of the universe which neither
conflicts with, nor supports, philosophy, religion, or science. I would be
extraordinarily surprised
if the theory of evolution, in some form or another, is not essentially
correct. What is troublesome is that challenges to evolution, and other
theories scientists adopt as scientifically "self-evident", are often
viewed as a return to the "irrationality" that preceded science. As
such they are rejected without consideration as unworthy intrusions into pure
science, which will go away if ignored.
The instant reaction
many readers have when they see the word "evolution" illustrates my point. Many scientists simply
will not talk about anything that upsets their idea of reality, yet all theories
do just that. When any theory is first proposed, it is by its very nature an
extension of humankind's knowledge (whether such knowledge is illusory or not),
and as such goes beyond the then accepted view of the world. So long as such
extensions are orderly and slow there is no problem, but when they leap ahead
into the future they become the immediate concern of scientists who wish to keep
science "pure". There is a strong presumption that something that has not been
proven is somehow less than true. To many people the unproved is not simply
unproven, but is "fantastic" and worthy only of the title "science fiction".
Thus despite professed
neutrality on the untested, many scientists have made it clear they are ready
to label as absurd that which is significantly outside common experience and
which has not been subjected to empirical scrutiny. If popular theories do not
withstand future scientific challenges, recognition of their weakness will be
slow to come, and acceptance of more exotic alternatives will be resisted with
cries that the alternate theories are irrational myths. One should feel uneasy
that correct theories, which are not subject to easy testing, might be
dismissed as absurd. If something is currently "unproved" it may well
be rejected by scientists as an impossibility, no one
beyond the person postulating the theorem may dare dream of its truth.
As we have already
noted, in addition to rejecting that which may be proved in the future, many
scientists are equally willing to reject as an impossibility the existence of
that which is beyond human perception, and thus "unprovable".
No matter what we may think, or intuitively "feel", we absolutely
cannot say anything objective at all about the "unprovable".
The as of yet "unproved", as well as the "unprovable",
may, or may not, be "true".
We should note one
type of statement, the definition, which can be viewed as an irrefutable truth.
By definition, water "boils" at 100 degrees Celsius. You can always
define something to be what you want it to be, yet no matter how you define an
event you will not alter the physical reality that makes up the event. Water
"boils" at 100 degrees because we have defined what water does at
that temperature to be "boiling". The word "boiling" is
nothing more than a description of what happens at a given temperature. As a
definition it is a label, which has nothing to say about the physical laws that
affect the water.
Nothing assures us
water will continue to act like it does when it gets to 100 degrees. If in the
future the behavior of water changes, scientists must either continue to label
the new activity as "boiling" by broadening the meaning of the word,
or must coin a new word to describe the changed state. If water would solidify
instead of vaporizing, scientists could continue to define the new behavior as
"boiling" and no one could say they were wrong. Yet the new state would
be totally opposite to the old, only the name would remain the same.
Fortunately most observers recognize a responsibility not to use language to
define away challenges to their beliefs, therefore
they create new words to label new events. The thing to remember is that
definitions do not explain or alter the underlying reality.