Some interesting parallels

I came across this article on the blog Science-Based Medicine, "Certainty versus knowledge in medicine" written by Dr. David Gorski. In it he discusses the phenomenon whereby people actively discount the results of science when it conflicts with their personally-held beliefs. It's very interesting, but what struck me as most were the parallels that can be made between people's dismissing of science and their dismissing of religious skepticism, i.e., atheism and it's weaker cousin, agnosticism. Indeed, he even begins his article with this very simile:

If there’s a trait among humans that seems universal, it appears to be an unquenchable thirst for certainty. It is likely to be a major force that drives people into the arms of religion, even radical religions that have clearly irrational views, such as the idea that flying planes into large buildings and killing thousands of people is a one-way ticket to heaven.

And it's all science's fault. As Dr. Gorski points out: "[O]ne of the hardest things for many people to accept about science-based medicine is that the conclusions of science are always subject to change based on new evidence ..." Science is by its nature a moving target. Truth may be out there (paraphrasing some others), but we're never sure we've found it. Yes, the state of uncertainty is an awful place to be. I've heard it said that the certainty of misery is preferable to the misery of uncertainty.

He discusses some examples of how stubbornly even "sciencey" people hold onto outdated beliefs. The so-called "conventional wisdom" of the profession. Then he moves on to a discussion of what he calls "scientific impotence discounting." In other words: science is unable to explain things with certainty. It is impotent in some respects because of its provisionality. And given that it's always waffling about "the truth" there is the tendency to disregard the things that it does uncover. Sort of: Hey, if what we thought last year was true now turns out to be wrong, then what's to say what we think is true today won't be debunked in another year? But that's an over-generalization and not at all fair to science.

What we thought last year hasn't been completely thrown out. It's been refined--altered--to better fit new evidence we've uncovered. Of course, we could be wrong this time, too, but are we getting progressively more wrong, or less wrong? I still believe we are gradually getting less and less wrong. Much closer to the truth. But now, here is where things get really interesting:

Another common strategy I’ve seen for scientific impotence discounting is to dismiss science as “just another religion,” just as valid as whatever woo science is refuting, or to label science as “just another belief system,” as valid as any other. In other words, postmodernism!

Yes, this postmodernist thought is very disturbing, because not all hypotheses are created equal, and it seeks to treat every idea as equally likely. If there's a "faith" element to science, then it's in the belief that there's a huge mountain of scientific evidence behind our current theories, and that what we "believe" today to be the truth aren't some brand-new untried and untested ideas, but the result of years--eons--of testing and refinement. It's the natural selection of scientific ideas at work, in the most thorough, ruthless way we know. There's no room for fluff in the marketplace of ideas.

I've seen these postmodernist thought arguments made in an attempt to discount atheism, as well. Replace the word "science" with "atheism" in the above passage and see if it doesn't sound familiar. In fact, I heard these very statements last night from a person who openly categorizes herself as "mostly atheist." Wow! (I may have more to say about my experiences with this person, but not in this post.)

Almost everyone comes to non-belief via the route of critical analysis of the world around us and the obvious lack of any evidence of the supernatural. We do become somewhat ingrained in our non-beliefs, because to think otherwise appears delusional. And we'd like not to delude ourselves. But, is science and belief in science a "religion"? Is atheism nothing more than a funky kind of negative religion where we all wear funny hats and sit around making fun of others who wear different kinds of funny hats? It does make sense that the same forces that cause otherwise rational people to discard good science in favor of more comfortable (albeit false) beliefs would also play into why religious people seem quite happy to tell non-believers that their ideas are no more valid than anyone's. Never mind one perspective is based on the world around us, and the other on what we feel in "our hearts." I'm not saying to ignore your heart, just wait a little while and see if it doesn't change. The natural world is not so ephemeral.

Dr. Gorski goes on to say:

Skepticism and science are hard in that they tend to go against some of the most deeply ingrained human traits there are, in particular the need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Also in play is our tendency to cling to our beliefs, no matter what, as though having to change our beliefs somehow devalues or dishonors us. Skepticism, critical thinking, and science can help us overcome these tendencies, but it’s difficult.

I see the relationship between religious belief and scientific "belief." They may both be beliefs, but where one (religion) seems to be adherence to a certain set of "facts," scientific belief is based on the process of determining the facts, not in the facts themselves. It's easy to see how someone would confuse these things, but they're really not at all alike. As Dr. Gorski concludes, belief in science dooms one to a life of uncertainty, but it's something that one learns to live with. So, I suppose, if you cannot deal with uncertainty, then go find a nice religion.