Where Science Meets Worldviews
Loren Haarsma
Physics & Astronomy Department, Calvin College
Science, Philosophy,
& Ethics Symposium
Grand Valley
State University
April 2, 2004
1
Rough & ready definition: your
“worldview” is your basic assumptions
and answers to questions like:
•
•
•
•
What is the fundamental basis of reality?
What, fundamentally, is a human being?
How and why is knowledge possible?
What is our ultimate goal in life?
2
Scholars’ worldviews play
guiding roles in most scholarship
In literature, history, psychology, economics,
philosophy, and many other disciplines, scholars
sometimes fundamentally disagree about
methodology and conclusions ― because of
their differing worldviews.
“The values and worldviews that imply certain
policy conclusions also form the foundations of the
economic analyses that justify those conclusions.”
--John Tiemstra, “Why Economists Disagree”
Challenge: The Magazine of Economic Affairs
3
1. Why do natural scientists, who have
many different worldviews,
fundamentally agree about so much
in their professional scholarship?
2. What role do our worldviews play in
the practice of science?
4
Where science meets worldview:
1. The philosophical foundations for science.
2. Philosophical interpretations and
extrapolations of science.
3. The biggest scientific mysteries.
4. When scientific knowledge interacts with
other kinds of knowledge.
5. Motives, ethics, and social context of
science.
5
1. Some “worldview” assumptions
are NOT a helpful basis for science
(Bill Waterson, Calvin and Hobbes)
6
There is a subset of “worldview” beliefs that
seem necessary to do science, and are
generally shared by scientists.
1. We can understand nature.
2. Nature typically operates with regular,
repeatable, universal patterns.
3. Experiments are needed; theory is not
enough.
4. Science is worth doing.
These beliefs are meta-scientific.
Many ancient cultures had some of those
beliefs, but not others.
7
Shared worldview
beliefs for science:
A theist might justify
these beliefs theologically
1.
1. We are made in God’s
image, gifted with abilities.
2. Nature is not filled with
capricious gods, but ruled
by one God in a faithful,
consistent manner.
3. God’s creativity is free, we
are limited.
4. We are called by God to do
so, and we are studying
God’s handiwork.
2.
3.
4.
We can understand
nature.
Nature typically
operates with
regular, repeatable,
universal patterns.
Experiments are
needed; theory is not
enough.
Science is worth
doing.
8
Shared worldview
beliefs for science:
1.
2.
3.
4.
We can understand
nature.
Nature typically
operates with
regular, repeatable,
universal patterns.
Experiments are
needed; theory is not
enough.
Science is worth
doing.
An atheist might justify
these beliefs thus:
1. Intelligence and the ability
to predict are adaptive.
2. Matter simply has these
properties; & the material
world is all there is.
3. Our intelligence and
rationality have only
evolved so far.
4. Science is interesting,
knowledge brings power to
help ourselves and others.
9
1. Science meets worldview at the
philosophical foundations for science
•
•
•
Scientists don’t all share the same worldview,
but they do share a crucial subset of
worldview beliefs that make science possible.
No single worldview ― atheist, theist, or other
― can claim “ownership” of science. Scientific
knowledge and the scientific method are
compatible with multiple worldviews.
Scientists of differing worldviews can work
side-by-side to study the properties,
functioning, and history of the natural world,
using the same methods and reaching
consensus on scientific conclusions.
10
2. Science meets worldview when
scientific knowledge is
interpreted and extrapolated
by our worldview assumptions
(Cartoon by Berkeley Breathed, Bloom County)
11
Interpretation of Natural Laws
Scientific view, generally shared by scientists:
• There are understandable, universal,
predictable patterns of cause and effect in
nature which we discover through experiment
and theory, which we call “natural laws.”
An atheistic or deistic interpretation:
God either doesn’t exist, or is not involved.
“These [natural] laws may have originally been decreed
by God, but it appears that he has since left the
universe to evolve according to them and does not
now intervene in it.”
--Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time 12
Interpretation of Natural Laws
Scientific view, generally shared by scientists:
• There are understandable, universal,
predictable patterns of cause and effect in
nature which we discover through experiment
and theory, which we call “natural laws.”
One theistic interpretation:
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and
comets, could only proceed from the counsel and
dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
---Sir Isaac Newton
God is not absent from events which we can
explain scientifically; rather, natural laws
describe how God usually governs creation.
(e.g. Psalm 104:19-21)
13
Interpretation of Random events
Scientific view, generally shared by scientists:
Many events have outcomes which include an
element of randomness. The final outcome
cannot be completely predicted in terms of
initial conditions and natural laws. They are
modeled probabilistically. (e.g. the weather,
mutations, quantum events)
One theistic interpretation:
May be one way God can subtly interact with
creation, e.g. by “selecting” an outcome.
(e.g. Proverbs 16:33)
May indicate God’s gift of capabilities and limited
freedom to creation.
*
Analogies of genetic algorithms in engineering and art.
14
Interpretation of Random events
Scientific view, generally shared by scientists:
Many events have outcomes which include an
element of randomness. The final outcome
cannot be completely predicted in terms of
initial conditions and natural laws. They are
modeled probabilistically. (e.g. the weather,
mutations, quantum events)
One atheistic interpretation:
Random events are fundamentally uncaused, undirected.
“Some shrink from the conclusion that the human
species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the
product of mere mechanical mechanisms ― but this
seems to be the message of evolution.”
--Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution
15
2. Scientific knowledge is interpreted
and extrapolated by our worldview
•
•
•
Our shared scientific knowledge about the
deterministic and probabilistic “laws of nature” has
lead to a general scientific consensus about the
history, present functioning, and extrapolated
future of the material universe (e.g. big bang
cosmology, geological history, biological
evolution).
These results from science allow multiple
worldview interpretations.
When teaching students, or doing public speaking
or writing, a scientist ought to be aware of when
he or she is going beyond generally-agreed
science into worldview interpretations ― and
candidly admit this.
16
3. Science meets worldview at the
biggest scientific mysteries
(cartoon by Sidney Harris)
17
Scientists try to build empirical models of past
and present events based on known natural
laws plus information about the conditions
before, during, and after the event.
Attempts to build empirical models meet with
varying degrees of success. For example:
– “Explained” events (e.g. supernovae)
– “Partially explained” events
(e.g. zygotic development)
– “Unexplainable” events, with good
reasons to rule out models employing only
known natural laws.
(e.g. source of the Big Bang)
18
How do scientists deal with
“unexplainable” events?
No consensus. Individual scientists could reach one
of (at least) five meta-scientific conclusions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Unknown natural law
Supernatural event
Super-human technology
Improbable event that simply occurred
Improbable event, but Many Universes
These five are very different from each other
philosophically, but play virtually identical roles
in scientific arguments.
19
“Unexplainable” events
Historical example:
• Late 1800’s ― unknown energy source of the
sun. (Later discovered to be nuclear fusion.)
Modern examples:
• The source of the Big Bang and apparent “fine
tuning” of the laws of nature for life.
*
•
There are some cosmologists today advocating
each of those five meta-scientific conclusions.
Most scientists classify consciousness and first
life on earth as “partially explained,” although a
few argue that one or both are “unexplainable.”
*
Those scientists who favor “unexplainable” disagree
with each other about which of those five metascientific conclusions is best.
20
3. Science meets worldview at the
biggest scientific mysteries
•
•
Scientists can, at least in principle, reach
consensus on whether a certain event is
explained, partially explained, or
unexplainable in terms of known natural
laws.
Worldview plays an important role in
choosing a meta-scientific hypothesis for
events currently considered
“unexplainable.”
21
4. Scientific knowledge interacts with
other kinds of knowledge
(cartoon by Sidney Harris)
22
• Other commons sources of knowledge:
– Historical information
– Personal experience
– Social knowledge (experience of others)
– Revealed knowledge
Every day we make decisions based these types of
knowledge.
• When we take a vaccine, we trust science.
• An historian might risk her career to publish an
unpopular hypothesis, if she believe she has
reliable historical evidence.
• You might trust a friend based on your personal
experiences, which no one else shares.
• You might give a lot of time and money to a
23
charity which has a good reputation.
• Ignoring non-scientific knowledge, and reducing
everything to a materialistic level of explanation,
falls into the fallacy of “nothing but.”
Example: “A Shakespearean sonnet is nothing but ink on
paper.” The sonnet could be described by ink-blot
coordinates on a page. This description would be
complete on its own level, and useful for programming an
ink-jet printer. But if you ignore the historical, poetic,
emotional, social levels of description you miss the most
important levels for most purposes in life.
Example: “Human beings are nothing but organic machines
built by their genes for reproduction.”
To avoid the fallacy but retain the partial truth,
replace the words “nothing but” with “not just.”
24
Our worldview, and all of our sources of
knowledge (including scientific), inform
our decisions ― from the smallest
choices to life-long “faith commitments.”
Examples of faith commitments:
– Faith in a friend, a spouse, a group.
– Religious faith.
– Faith in a political philosophy or system
(e.g. a commitment to support democracy).
– Faith in the peer review system (something
which scientists trust most of the time).
25
The rationality of faith commitments
• Many people use the word “faith” to mean
“believing in some idea despite lack of
evidence or despite contradictory evidence.”
This is NOT a helpful definition.
• A better definition of a “faith commitment” to a
friend, a group, or a deity is:
– Trusting in their character and ability to
keep their promises.
– Acting “in good faith” towards them.
– Being faithful in difficult circumstances.
26
A “faith commitment” could be
unreasonable, or very reasonable
• The opposite of Reason is Irrationality.
• The opposite of Skepticism is Gullibility.
• The opposite of Doubt is Certainty.
• A good word for the opposite of Faith is
Unbelief.
– Both are deliberate choices about how to
live your life. Either can be chosen
because of a lot of evidence, a little
evidence, or even despite evidence.
27
4. Scientific knowledge interacts with
other kinds of knowledge
•
•
•
Scientific knowledge informs, augments,
and sometimes corrects other kinds of
knowledge.
Scientific knowledge does not replace or
invalidate other levels of description based
on other kinds of knowledge.
Assuming no real contradictions, scientific
knowledge does not invalidate reasonable
decisions or reasonable faith commitments
based on other types of knowledge.
28
5. Worldviews inform the motives,
ethics, and social context of science
(cartoon by Sidney Harris)
29
5. Worldviews inform the motives,
ethics, and social context of science
•
•
Scientists can and do have vast areas
of agreement about the motives,
ethics, and social context of doing
science.
Because scientists have many
different worldviews, there are bound
to be some areas of disagreement.
30
Scientists might agree about a scientific
goal, but disagree about the ethics
of how to reach that goal.
• For example: the goal of learning how to modify
cells from adults to act as stem cells to treat
various diseases and injuries.
• One scientist might conclude that it is unethical to
create and destroy human embryos for research;
so the techniques should first be worked out on
other primates.
• Another scientist might conclude that careful
embryo use is both ethical and desirable to speed
research, so that lives can be saved sooner.
31
Scientists might agree about a scientific
finding, but disagree about the social and
political implications of that finding.
• For example: scientists can reach consensus on
what the data and the best climate models
predict about global warming over the next
several decades.
• Scientists might still disagree with each other
about the best political and economic actions
to take in the face of those predictions.
32
Scientists don’t necessarily share
all the same motives and goals
for doing science.
•
•
One might be motivated to do science, in part,
to bring greater praise and glory to God.
Another might be motivated to do science, in
part, to help advance atheism and eventually
eradicate religion.
But scientists of different worldviews do
share many of the same motives and
goals.
33
Scientists share many motives and goals.
Harvard Society of Fellows Declaration of Principles:
"You have been selected as a member of this society for your personal
prospect of serious achievement in your chosen field, and your promise
of notable contribution to knowledge and thought. That promise you
must redeem with your whole intellectual and moral force. You will
practice the virtues, and avoid the snares, of the scholar. You will be
courteous to your elders who have explored to the point from which
you may advance; and helpful to your juniors who will progress farther
by reason of your labors. Your aim will be knowledge and wisdom, not
the reflected glamour of fame. You will not accept credit that is due to
another, or harbor jealousy of an explorer who is more fortunate. You
will seek not a near but a distant objective, and you will not be satisfied
with what you may have done. All that you may achieve or discover
you will regard as a fragment of a larger pattern of the truth which from
the separate approaches every true scholar is striving to descry. To
these things, in joining the Society of Fellows, you dedicate yourself."
34
Why care about worldviews?
•
•
•
•
Know thyself. Your motives, ethics, and goals
for science come from your worldview.
Understand your colleagues better.
Debates are more informed and more
productive when you have a better
understanding of the source of your
disagreements.
When teaching students or doing public
speaking or writing, a scientist should be
aware of when he or she goes beyond
generally-agreed science into worldview
interpretations, and candidly admit this.
35