Thoughts on science
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004
I’ve been reading The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It’s largely an advocation of the scientific method and scepiticism over pseudoscience and mysticism. I think I’ve read enough of it now to draw out and describe a common thread that appealed to me:
Science very rarely proclaims anything absolutely untrue. What it will often do is proclaim “no evidence”. Science cannot address an issue that is not evidence-based – it simply has nothing to say about it. So claims such as “there is an invisible, intangible dragon in my garage” or “there exist other undetectable universes outside of our own” (to paraphrase two of Sagan’s examples) may or may not be true, but science cannot advocate them.
However (and this is the crunch, and the contentious bit), if science cannot back up a claim, that is synonymous with saying that you have no rational basis for your claim. Your are, as likely as not, wrong, and history is absolutely littered with examples of people who have made mistakes in just this way.



