(Originally posted: 5/3/2011)
Unlike a lot of scientists, I take the philosophy of science very seriously. Every anthropology class I teach begins with a day or two devoted completely to understanding what science is, what it does, and how it does it. I’m not sure that many other scientists–anthropologist or not–can say that. It is true, of course, that for the daily functioning of any scientific enterprise, a deep understanding of epistemology and metaphysical paradigms is not necessary, but it is also true that as theoretical structures become more complex and sophisticated, that deep understanding becomes more important. So, in an attempt to right some wrongs, over the next couple weeks I’ll be making a series of posts that explore widespread popular misconceptions about science. Some of them are more widely known as misconceptions than others, but all of them are dangerous ideas that can lead the non-scientific community to misunderstand scientists, and lead unwary scientists to draw incorrect conclusions. Click through to the full story for Misconception 1.
Misconception 1: Science and the scientific method are the best ways to learn about the world around us.
This one is easy to deflate for an astute anthropologist. “Best ways according to whom?” While science is certainly a very effective way for learning about certain parts of the world around us, there is no independent reason to assume those parts are either important or even the majority of the world. Neither is there any independent way to judge whether another way of knowing is better.
Science is, after all, only one of a great number of ways that we make sense of the world around us. Traditionally, science is set against religion as the other great “way of knowing,” but there is also intuition, tradition, straight-up guesswork, and so on. All of these ways of knowing make certain assumptions about the nature of the world. Science, for example, assumes that the world works naturalistically, according to predictable, mechanistic laws. Religion (often) assumes that the world works according to the wishes of supernatural entities with individual personae comparable to human identities. A schizophrenic’s way of knowing may assume the world operates according to random chance. Ways of knowing also make asusmptions about what parts of the world are important. For science, the important parts are those naturalistic laws; for religion, the supernatural entities, and so on.
Coupled with those assumptions are prescribed ways of learning about the important parts of the world. Science prescribes the scientific method and (attempts at) objectivity. Religion assumes that subjective experiences and the experience of traditional rituals and beliefs will lead to knowledge.
The misconception about science arises when people try to judge two ways of knowing against one another. Since both make completely different assumptions and prescribe completely different criteria for judging success, there is no independent way to compare their results. To judge religious knowledge according to the rules of science would be like penalizing a football player for not dribbling the ball. He violated a rule of basketball because he was never trying to play by basketball’s rules in the first place.
So to say that science is a better way of learning about the world than religion (or any other way of knowing) is logically meaningless. Of course science fits its own rules better. But why would you want to judge the other system by science’s rules? For example, the scientific method produces more testable predictions of mechanistic actions than religion…but religion says that such predictions are ultimately unimportant anyway. Science can’t hold a candle to religion for explaining the nature of the soul and the afterlife. Does that mean it fails in all cases?
So, while it is absolutely true that science and the scientific method are extremely useful ways of learning about certain aspects of the world around us, a good scientist will never claim that they are the best way in all circumstances. As my father says, “You use the right tool for the right job.” There are just some jobs that science is the wrong tool for, and in those situations, a good scientist will be willing to admit as much!