Why We Need Science

Recently, I had several thoughts ranging from agnosticism to The Walking Dead and the role of science. The conclusion of the many thoughts was that besides luck, my species or descendant species best hope for continuation is the advancement and implementation of science and the creation of technologies that results from the advancement of science . Philosophy and religion got us to science in that they both started with wonder, for example, the questions of why are we here; why is there something rather than nothing, etc., were and still are important questions. Most Religions, especially Judeo-Christian based religions, stopped with a supernatural explanation or agent and didn't advanced from there, they hoped to somehow manipulate the supernatural agent, while Philosophy continued to become what is called Natural philosophy the precursor to science. I don’t think philosophy is dead, I think it has a role in science from asking pertinent questions to guiding the ethics around the result of scientific inquiry. The questions philosophy ask should lead to new avenues and falsifiable theories or explanations that describe who, what, when, where, why, and how of the empirical evidence and phenomena that science is trying to describe or observe. Religion at least in Western societies are stuck on a Judeo-Christian paradigm or model that is no longer relevant for the advancement of my species and its future species. In other words, the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) model stopped at the supernatural explanation i.e. god did it model and has not advanced, this means it has only put forward a mystery to describe another mystery and this explains nothing. I am agnostic why we’re here and whether the universe has a meaning or point that is objective, this is unknowable or if it’s just a brute fact, it is what it is, and there is no objective meaning only subjective meaning, again this is unknowable without additional data. This line of thinking lead me into thinking about why do we as a species study nature in order to understand how the universe work unless there is a hope that we’re able to find a solution to the eventual heat death of the universe, whether it culminates in the Big Chill or the Big Rip, because of a repulsive force called Dark Energy, the place holder name for an unknown force that science doesn’t know what it is, it is the cosmological constant in Albert Einstein’s theory of Relativity. The better we understand the universe there is hope that we can use this knowledge to our advantage to perpetuate our survival as a species or whatever we evolve into. For example, when Sir Isaac Newton gave us a better understanding of gravity, we used that knowledge to develop technologies to overcome the force of gravity to the point that we used his laws to land on the moon, and still use them to land objects on Mars, and other space missions. Likewise, we hope that a better understanding through the scientific methods would lead to knowledge and this knowledge would lead to technologies that will help our descendants whether they’re an entirely different species overcome the heat death of the universe. For example, science with its track record so far for the betterment of life on our planet has done this, i.e. the advancement of science has developed genetically modified food to feed more people, it has developed pharmaceutical advancements to cure and treat biologically based disease and so science has and continue to get the job done, not religion. If our species or a descendant species of ours is going to survive science is our best hope with the guidance of ethics and other areas of philosophical ideas, not religion, for when you stop with a supernatural explanation that explains everything else, without the same time being explained, you explain nothing for you have not further our knowledge. Especially, if you don’t know if this supernatural entity is doing anything without some type of empirically based or falsifiable evidence. We don’t know if someone goes into remission if it is luck or a miracle, thus until direct evidence of a supernatural effect is known it does not add to our knowledge. With this thought I thought about the hit series The Walking Dead and why do they fight on even though everyone is infected, I think it is the evolutionary instinct that want to perpetuate itself in the gene, for life, consciousness, awareness, and existence itself is what Arthur Schopenhauer called the “will to Live”. It is this instinct that evolved in every living cell, when the first replicating molecule adapted to its environment and became alive and aware or conscious, this desire to survive that drive the survivors in The Walking Dead and (in each of us) to live with, within, and beyond their circumstances and my argument is if they are going to survive it will take science to figure out the cause and effect and the solution through some form of technology to a problem that is or will turn them into zombies, in other words, they currently don’t have an answer, but if they stop with a supernatural answer that cannot explain itself in a coherent way or advance a solution to create an immunization protocol then they are all destined to become zombies and this is no answer at all. Think about it....

The Certainty of Uncertainty... I know that I don't know and it's Okay to say so

Ever since our brain and there by mind evolved to the point of thinking about the universe and our place in it, the age old question has been why is there something rather than nothing? Built into this key question is the innate desire for an answer or what I call certainty in an uncertain world. From this wonder, three institutions have emerged and have tried to answer this question and satisfy our need for certainty; these institutions are religion, philosophy, and science. Therefore, I must ask what is certainty and why is it important? Certainty comes from the Latin certus, which means "sure, fixed, settled, and determined...” In other words, we want consistency, knowledge, i.e., a way to control and manipulate our environment in order to survive but the universe seem to be indifferent to our desires or as Albert Camus called this feeling, the Absurd, our need for the universe to give us an answer and its refusal to do so. Nevertheless, we want to live, we want to survive and we don't know why? Perhaps this desire is what Arthur Schopenhauer called the will to live and Immanuel Kant called the thing in itself, we want to avoid suffering and reduce our chances of ending our life because of the uncertainty of what happens after death. I agree with Epicurus about a fear of death, when he stated "Why should I fear death? If I am, death, is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not."
As I stated earlier, I think uncertainty is the creator of religion, philosophy and the sciences. I think humanity want certainty because it gives us a sense of security and safety and this gives us an illusion of control. The desire for control over our environment and its resources creates an idea at least that we are increasing our chances of survival. The reason or the evolutionary drive for survival is our will to live, or the emergence of life and its continuance. I think uncertainty was an important precursor to religious ideology because it gives the practitioner the false impression of control or influence over the outcome. As a result, if you throw divination bones, read the intestines of a goat, the oracles of the cracks of a heated tortoise or turtle shell you get the delusion of control. Even in the so-called dominant religions of today, where people believe in a god who created the universe and who will make life for his believers better, they read his so-called word, pray, there is still a delusion of control and certainty. I think prayer has replaced the manipulative functions of divination, because in prayer the person is trying to influence the outcome by control or influencing the source of power (the god) behind their situation. As Voltaire once wrote if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. For Plato wrote in The Republic, his idea of the ideal society, that a belief in the gods and an afterlife is necessary to keep the societal order, in other words, it’s all about our delusional need for power and control. This is why people avoid agnosticism like it is the plague because it is an uncertain position. Even though it is the most intellectually honest position, just to say "I don't know" to most people is unacceptable and people who default to belief or non-belief according to psychologist are happier than people who are uncertain, even when people know something bad they are happier than not knowing, this seems to go against the old saying or idea by William Blake “where ignorance is bliss tis folly to be wise…” Although uncertainty is essential to the pursuit of science, for it gives scientist a problem to investigate, I still feel that the motivation is still the desire to control the unknown and uncertain, because not knowing can be detrimental to survival, in other words, our evolutionary will to live drive us to do whatever is necessary to pass on our genes to the next generation.
Finally, while thinking on the certainty of uncertainty, I watched a documentary online by Jacob Bronowski titled "Knowledge and Certainty", which is part of a 13 segmented series called the "Ascent of Man". I think the film goes along with what I have been discussing and I feel the film's message was we can be certain within limits of a principle which Professor Bronowski called "The Principle of Tolerance" which he borrowed from Heisenberg called the "The principle of Uncertainty". Tolerance is an engineering term in that when parts are manufactured with a certain degree of tolerance or "a give or take" that is, an approximation is incorporated in the product for it is not possible to make anything to perfect dimension, not because of human fallibility, however, because of the uncertainties in matter and energy itself. In other words, our scientific facts or laws are approximations because of the give or take i.e. the uncertainty that is innate in matter and energy. However, when our approximated truths become a dogma it is no longer science it is another religion, which means it is something that binds us and our thinking. I think we can be reasonably certain of some things but understand that in this certainty there are areas of uncertainty and limitations. I am advocating a philosophical position called Fallibilism, a doctrine that nothing can be known for certain, that is, there is no infallible knowledge, but there can still be knowledge, or as the Philosopher Rick Roderick stated it "That means something like this, a fallibilist is someone who passionately believes certain things.. Some of them quite bizarre ... But about those beliefs, they believe that those beliefs could be wrong." On the one hand, I understand that we have evolved by the will to live and the more certain we are the happier, confident, and more inclined to survive and pass on our genes. On the other hand, arrogance or thinking that we are infallible is dangerous because if matter and energy, the very foundation of all we know is uncertain, then the only certainty is the certainty of uncertainty, that is, the give and take innate in the universe. Any ideology that does not allow for give or take is static and dead because it leaves little room for tolerance or the “give or take” for the universe is about change. Because of our innate desire to survive, or as Schopenhauer called it our will to live, I think the scientific method that is, wonder, hypothesis and testing is the best method that we have in finding an approximated truth because built in it is a self-correcting system that understands that it could be wrong. In summary, I think the evolutionary drive to pass on our genes or "the will to live" necessitates the creation of certainty in order for life to continue but in our delusion of certainty we need to be open to the hypothesis that we could be wrong and the best way to do this are through critical thinking, the Socratic and Scientific Methods, but I am open to the possibility or at least remind myself that this too could be wrong. In other words, what it all boils down to is I don't know and I know that I don't know and it's okay to say this for life will continue whether I am certain or not. Think about it... John D. Socrates

References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_tolerance
2. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/bronowski.html
3. http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/fallibilism.php
4. http://rickroderick.org/101-socrates-and-the-life-of-inquiry-1990/