The Arrogance of Faith
Socrates taught that "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." This wisdom could equally be called "humility".
The marvelous thing about the scientific method is that it takes this philosophy of humility to heart. A scientist must start by acknowledging that we can't ever be certain of anything. What tools does a scientist have? Logic, the cornerstone of reason. Evidence, gathered through painstaking research. Conclusions drawn by combining the previous two. And underlying it all, axioms (such as the Principle of Induction), which are taken on faith--they are believed to be true but can never be proven. Keeping that last fact in mind ought to be reason enough for humility.
A scientist has two jobs: To add to human knowledge by gathering new evidence and drawing new conclusions, and to be skeptical--to question his own work and that of other scientists. Note that I define skepticism as a healthy wariness of certainty, not as a tendency to deny certain assertions automatically.
If a scientist is to succeed at either task, he must start with an open mind. This means that when examining a proposition X, he is willing to adopt either position: X is true. X is false. Only once the evidence has been examined and logic employed can either position be selected, and even then, the scientist must remember it is possible to make mistakes.
It is a pity that we live in so specialized a society. Scientists are thought of as working away in ivory towers, building up knowledge slowly and steadily, quite apart from the rest of us. We mere mortals must leave science to them, like leaving fire in the hands of the gods. But the scientific method is the best critical thinking technique we have, and it ought to be applied by everyone. It should be used when someone makes a sales pitch, suggests a new course for a business, or pushes a worldview.
It frustrates me no end when people make assertions such as these:
Opinions, by contrast, don't have to be proven. They are statements of personal preference. Gay marriage is immoral is an opinion, as is Brussels sprouts taste nasty. (I happen to disagree with both.) Anyone may opine on anything, but it must never be confused with fact.
A man who states flatly "Flying saucers do not exist" is often referred to as a skeptic, but that's not what skepticism is about. A skeptic thinks scientifically: he questions, seeks proof or disproof. Note that it is very hard to prove a negative, so a skeptic or scientist, or any clear-thinking person, ought to be reluctant to make such a statement. Those who rush to make them, and often do so loudly and repeatedly, are taking it on faith.
If it is humble to keep our ignorance in mind even as we work to correct it, it is arrogant to make assertions while refusing to admit the need for proof. Doing so raises these assertions to the level of axioms. This can only add to our ignorance--which Socrates called the one evil.
The marvelous thing about the scientific method is that it takes this philosophy of humility to heart. A scientist must start by acknowledging that we can't ever be certain of anything. What tools does a scientist have? Logic, the cornerstone of reason. Evidence, gathered through painstaking research. Conclusions drawn by combining the previous two. And underlying it all, axioms (such as the Principle of Induction), which are taken on faith--they are believed to be true but can never be proven. Keeping that last fact in mind ought to be reason enough for humility.
A scientist has two jobs: To add to human knowledge by gathering new evidence and drawing new conclusions, and to be skeptical--to question his own work and that of other scientists. Note that I define skepticism as a healthy wariness of certainty, not as a tendency to deny certain assertions automatically.
If a scientist is to succeed at either task, he must start with an open mind. This means that when examining a proposition X, he is willing to adopt either position: X is true. X is false. Only once the evidence has been examined and logic employed can either position be selected, and even then, the scientist must remember it is possible to make mistakes.
It is a pity that we live in so specialized a society. Scientists are thought of as working away in ivory towers, building up knowledge slowly and steadily, quite apart from the rest of us. We mere mortals must leave science to them, like leaving fire in the hands of the gods. But the scientific method is the best critical thinking technique we have, and it ought to be applied by everyone. It should be used when someone makes a sales pitch, suggests a new course for a business, or pushes a worldview.
It frustrates me no end when people make assertions such as these:
- Gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage.
- Anyone who says they've seen a UFO is crazy.
- There is no such thing as [ghosts, ESP, the Loch Ness monster...].
- Assertions about religion can never be proven or disproven by science.
Opinions, by contrast, don't have to be proven. They are statements of personal preference. Gay marriage is immoral is an opinion, as is Brussels sprouts taste nasty. (I happen to disagree with both.) Anyone may opine on anything, but it must never be confused with fact.
A man who states flatly "Flying saucers do not exist" is often referred to as a skeptic, but that's not what skepticism is about. A skeptic thinks scientifically: he questions, seeks proof or disproof. Note that it is very hard to prove a negative, so a skeptic or scientist, or any clear-thinking person, ought to be reluctant to make such a statement. Those who rush to make them, and often do so loudly and repeatedly, are taking it on faith.
If it is humble to keep our ignorance in mind even as we work to correct it, it is arrogant to make assertions while refusing to admit the need for proof. Doing so raises these assertions to the level of axioms. This can only add to our ignorance--which Socrates called the one evil.