Truth and Science

There seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding in American society about what science is. When some social engineers want to teach creationism, or intelligent design, alongside evolution in science classes, they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of science, as well as embuing science with far more importance than it has. "Evolution is just a theory", they say. Well of course it's a theory. That's what science is. Relativity is a theory. Quantum electrodynamics is a theory. They all happen to be theories that are consistent with all currently known evidence. Therefore, they are accepted as valid theories, for the time being, until some evidence is discovered with which they are not consistent.

What scares the social engineers is that they confuse scientific theories with truth. Science isn't about truth. Art is about truth. Religion is about truth. Philosophy, even, is about truth. But science is fundamentally and emphatically not about truth. Science is about fact. Science is about models. Science is about what is not true, in the sense that it can be shown that a given explanation does not jibe with data. But science is never about truth. Truth should not be taught in science class; it's just that simple.

I learned the "scientific method", attributed to Francis Bacon, in junior high school. It went something like this:

• observe a phenomenon
• formulate a(n) hypothesis (aka "model")
  
• test the hypothesis by any of the following means (listed in order of rigor):
  
• experimentation
  
• observation
• literature search
• conjecture
• analyse results
• draw conclusions

The only latitude for "truth" in that list is that a phenomenon was truly observed (which is different from stating that it truly happened), the data truly resulted from the experiment (if an experiment was conducted), and possibly, that the hypothesis truly did not fit the data. That's the absolute closest that science can come to truth.

Consider the study of mitochondrial DNA (mDNA). Scientists observed first that there was such a thing. Mitochondria are organelles within the cells of organisms that appear to have their own life-cycles but are carried through the host cells' reproduction. What a gas! Furthermore, as they are carried in fully formed cells, mitochondria are passed through the generations by mothers (whose ova are basically whole cells). Then they discovered that mitochondria mutate at knowable rate. Now this is a theory. They know that mitochondria mutate. They observe a pattern to that mutation, and they build a model of that mutation rate. Should any evidence come to light that violates that model, the theory would have to be discarded. None has. Using this model, scientists can calculate, and have calculated, at what point in the past two individuals (or an entire population) had a common maternal ancestor. They did it with dogs and they did it with people. Is it true? That's not a valid scientific question. It is consistent with all known data and the model. That's all.

Art, on the other hand, is about truth. That's why it isn't open to debate. That's why it isn't subject to refutation. That's why it can be wrong. Truth must be believed because there's no other way it can be known. Science, fact, data, need not be believed; it can be seen. Granted, sometimes the seeing requires some pretty elaborate equipment (including, say, mathematics), but it can be seen. Which is not to say that science is devoid of belief. The entire history of science, in fact, rests on one fundamental belief: there is an objective reality. It's actually pretty ironic. The basic tenet of science is that there is a truth that is, in essence, orthogonal to scientific observation. All we, as scientific beings, can do is sense simplified projections of reality. This was said about particle physics but I think it applies to all science: it's like hitting a swiss watch with a hammer and then trying to figure out what time it is by looking at the pieces. The more we learn about how complex our models can be without spanning the complexity of the underlying reality, the more we turn to art, religion, or, in extreme cases, drugs to express the truth.

So, if a school board somewhere doesn't like what science is, they should just not teach it. No regrets, no shame, no excuses. I like science but it's only one discipline among many for approaching or avoiding reality. To insist that science be taught, but that something that is not science be included in the curriculum, is to grant more importance to science than I think those who would do so would care to admit. Let them say with no embarassment: "We don't need no stinking science! We'll teach truth!". It wouldn't be my first choice but it is certainly within the prerogatives of local authorities. There are lot's of other worthwhile things to teach and to learn. But to teach that which is not science as science does a disservice to everyone.