Happiness In Uncertainty
Over the weekend I caught the last half of a lecture by Sam Harris on C-SPAN2. One point Mr. Harris made in his lecture was, I thought, was worth repeating...
At one point Mr. Harris was talking about how difficult it seems to get an (Aristotelian) answer from a scientist. Harris contended that this might be because that whatever they say will be heavily scrutinized, and before they reply with a "yes" or "no" they must be sure to have the data to support their claims. Furthermore, a scientist can never be sure if another scientist with more knowledge of the subject might be hiding out in the audience somewhere just waiting for a chance to discredit his claims.
To put it simply, a scientist should have no problems with admitting uncertainty. One might imagine that if a scientist did have such a problem, then it would probably not take long for his/her credibility within the scientific community to erode.
As necessary as such a skill (ability to admit uncertainty) may be, it also proves to be a useful tool for fundamentalist attempts to "fill in the gaps with God." In other words, if a scientist cannot (for example) say for certain exactly how the Earth was created, then he could not (in theory) deny the possibility that God created it. This sort of logic also leads to fundamentalists using the scientific admission of uncertainty to some how illustrate the "ignorance" of the scientific community, and thereby exalt (in theory) the fundamentalist's "Doctrine of Truth."
I would like to take this point one step further and state that the "admission of uncertainty = blatant proof of error" tactic goes beyond the "science versus religion" arena. A prime area for observation of this would be news commentary shows, or political* talk radio shows. In fact, I tend to agree with Robert Anton Wilson's observation that political parties seem to be just as dogmatic as churches. I digress.
It seems to me that the use of the "admission of uncertainty = blatant proof of error" tactic should be challenged (along with many other overly simplistic argumentative tactics) in what ever form it may present itself in. As Mr. Harris has concerns about the fundamentalist, and his/her dogmatic religion; I have concerns about the "crowned know-it-all," and his/her dogmatic paradigm. (Actually, Mr. Harris might see eye-to-eye with me on that one... maybe.)
* This tactic transcends political party lines.
At one point Mr. Harris was talking about how difficult it seems to get an (Aristotelian) answer from a scientist. Harris contended that this might be because that whatever they say will be heavily scrutinized, and before they reply with a "yes" or "no" they must be sure to have the data to support their claims. Furthermore, a scientist can never be sure if another scientist with more knowledge of the subject might be hiding out in the audience somewhere just waiting for a chance to discredit his claims.
To put it simply, a scientist should have no problems with admitting uncertainty. One might imagine that if a scientist did have such a problem, then it would probably not take long for his/her credibility within the scientific community to erode.
As necessary as such a skill (ability to admit uncertainty) may be, it also proves to be a useful tool for fundamentalist attempts to "fill in the gaps with God." In other words, if a scientist cannot (for example) say for certain exactly how the Earth was created, then he could not (in theory) deny the possibility that God created it. This sort of logic also leads to fundamentalists using the scientific admission of uncertainty to some how illustrate the "ignorance" of the scientific community, and thereby exalt (in theory) the fundamentalist's "Doctrine of Truth."
I would like to take this point one step further and state that the "admission of uncertainty = blatant proof of error" tactic goes beyond the "science versus religion" arena. A prime area for observation of this would be news commentary shows, or political* talk radio shows. In fact, I tend to agree with Robert Anton Wilson's observation that political parties seem to be just as dogmatic as churches. I digress.
It seems to me that the use of the "admission of uncertainty = blatant proof of error" tactic should be challenged (along with many other overly simplistic argumentative tactics) in what ever form it may present itself in. As Mr. Harris has concerns about the fundamentalist, and his/her dogmatic religion; I have concerns about the "crowned know-it-all," and his/her dogmatic paradigm. (Actually, Mr. Harris might see eye-to-eye with me on that one... maybe.)
* This tactic transcends political party lines.