reset 18:31

This month Will published its first issue. I penned an article about the Perimeter Institute for the Theoretical Physics which took too long too write and has garnered a little bit of attention from semi-anonymous blogging physicists who don't jive with the notion that science is a religion.

I wonder what the functional definition of religion is to physicists. Apparently it's not similar to mine. I regard religion as a holistic approach to explaining the seemingly inexplicable. Whether or not the explanations offered condense into a mythology is beside the point: explanations held to be true are only so through consensus and authority. The process of authorship is different in science than it is in religion but it's present nonetheless. Dogma is dogma, however it presents itself. In science, dogma is somewhat less infallible than in conventional religious though because it is constantly revised. I think the difference is a matter of scale, though. Religious dogma is also subject to revision, often through unlawful protestation and takes much longer because of the centrality of its authority (in most cases). Martin Luther's religious reforms helped changed the way western society is organized even moreso than Einstein or Schrodinger.

And all this without mentioning that early significant scientific discoveries such as Newton's, Galileo's, and Copernicus' emerged despite religious doctrine that opposed their ideas. Recently, the Vatican has even acknowledged Evolution and Extra-terrestrial Life as legitimate beliefs which fit within contemporary Catholic values. Not exactly jack-rabbit quick, but that's no surprise.

What I thought was a prescient comment made by the blogger was this:

"One would have hoped that after all the public outreach the message would have gotten across that science is the very antithesis of a belief system. You'd better call it a 'doubt system'."

Science is no way the antithesis of a belief system. There is no antithesis to belief. Even Atheism is a belief. Science uses an elaborate and well-conceived apparatus to validate its beliefs, but they are still just beliefs. Never is that more evident than when one tenet of those beliefs is disproved, leading to still more refined beliefs.

I guess what's at issue here is the same old 'what is truth' and 'what is fact' thing. And this is why I like quantum mechanics - things change when you observe them; but how could we ever know if we weren't watching ourselves observing something else? If a tree falls....

My point: science isn't perfect. It's not beyond reproach. It's not infallible. It's not better, just different; but not so different that it can't be compared to the old regime. It's driven by the same desires and anxieties and has the same dangers and pitfalls and anyone who tells you different... well, they're a fundamentalist of one stripe or another.