« links for 2007-11-24 | Main | Shiller: A Time for Bold Thinking on Housing »

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Faithful to Science

I haven't had much time to think about this, but posts are getting stale amid the rush of the holiday weekend, so, staying in "echo mode":

Taking Science on Faith, by Paul Davies, Commentary, NY Times: Science, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. ...

The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ...

The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature runs. The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws that regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion — all are expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?

When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary... The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. ...

Although scientists have long had an inclination to shrug aside such questions concerning the source of the laws of physics, the mood has now shifted considerably. Part of the reason ... that the laws of physics have now been brought within the scope of scientific inquiry is the realization that what we long regarded as absolute and universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all, but more like local bylaws. They could vary from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God’s-eye view might reveal a vast patchwork quilt of universes, each with its own distinctive set of bylaws. ...

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws... For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence. ...

It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Very quick (and probably wrong) reaction: I guess I don't see why falsifiability isn't enough to distinguish science from faith. The argument - I think- is that a statement like "this object is blue," which appears falsifiable isn't since if the laws of the universe change the object may be red instead of blue tomorrow. So I have to take it on "faith" that blue will stay blue forever. Fine, but as I look at the object it's either blue or it isn't. If it changes from blue to red someday, then that is an indication that either the hypothesis itself or one of the maintained hypotheses (i.e. that the laws of physics are constant, at least locally) is false. So I don't see why the scientific method fails us in this particular instance. But as I said, I didn't give this the thought it deserves, so feel free to explain why I've totally missed the point. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened.

    Posted by on Saturday, November 24, 2007 at 09:36 AM in Economics, Methodology, Science | Permalink  TrackBack (0)  Comments (78)

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b33869e200e54fa06c138834

    Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Faithful to Science:


    Comments

    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.