“The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers” Rupert Sheldrake.
Intro
Throughout the history of human community certain individuals contrived myriad of ways in securing law and order both in intellectual and social forms, albeit both forms remain intimately correlated. In a world where the law of entropy has been traumatizing the masses, a sense of order, certainty and clarity was and is very much desired at all levels of consciousness giving a well established path forward to some inquirer minds throughout the baffling experience one calls life. To succeed in unveiling the uncertain future one can do nothing but to resort to one’s intellectual faculty as a means to forge the desired future as an image to be later instantiated. Human entity to a limited extent has had some success in devising such means of prediction shedding a rather dim light on the emerging path forward appearing as the evolution of moments.
The means and methods devised to illuminate each and every step forward are essentially the incarnation of ideas humans entertain. These ideas and their incarnation come in different forms ranging from scientific to ideological, philosophical and so on, but at the end they serve the same purpose: creating a sense of certainty and providing a structured outlook for human community in the midst of chaotic uncertain daily events. In spite of the context (be it scientific, philosophical or anything else) there is an appeal for novelties and emerging disruptive methods of enlightenment. This inclination of individuals towards new trends comes from an insatiable need for mental comfort by searching for alleged answers, though temporary, yet liberating from the shackles of ambiguity, providing hope for more promising possibilities of getting closer to deciphering the enigma of “purpose of life”. The tendency for novel and better answers draws individuals into groups forming communities. The Scientology community, the materialists, the idealists, the flat-earthers and so on and so forth. This is a way where conviction is carved out of an idea and advocated by the members of the communities. All convictions or ideas have not always been accepted without confrontation nor have they been dismissed without resistance. There actually exists a fierce competition for dominance which roots in reptilian brain and human entity’s desire for survival, and one does not survive merely as a physical object but one’s objective existence is a reflection of one’s subjective vision. As a portrayal of such sentiment one observes the emergence of different forms of conflicts throughout the history, be it physical conflicts in the form of ground combats or intellectual conflicts in the form of fiery debates. In the formation of this clash of ideas human bias plays an implacable role, as it is an active agent in all conviction carving processes. One subtle though important issue with grave consequences is that the inclination of the masses towards different schools of thought is not necessarily based on rational thinking. It is true that the human conviction is deeply rooted in the individual’s innate need for meaning and purpose but the majority of individuals tend to leave the tedious and bone breaking thinking process to specified group of entities who may be known as intellectuals, scholars, scientists, theologians, politicians or as one may call them elites. Now more precisely the way in which a community forms is, once the image of an abstract conviction is meticulously crafted and visualized by the so-called elites the masses just look inattentively and find the one image that appeases their sense of wonder the most and adhere to it, in majority of cases unquestionably and faithfully. This conviction seeking tendency was not overlooked by pioneer thinkers and leader figures. It’s been exploited in the interest of dominating the heart and mind of herds and consequently griping on the power and influence which is all about the liberty of action and quenching the thirst for self-righteousness. Following this logic the ideas consistent with the bigger portion of mainstream outlook in a community found a faster growing audience but not necessarily lasted long such as polytheism as opposed to monotheism. Some other ideas struggled and lingered through time and nearly rejected and forgotten yet they found their way back to the intellectual faculty of society and are widely accepted today as facts, such as heliocentrism as opposed to geocentrism.
The root of all conviction seeking may have been started in an organised way by natural philosophy which is what we call today modern science. Science might be the most stubborn manifestation of organised thinking in pursuit of meaning and purpose. It is literally the incarnation of human thinking and the demonstration of individual’s astonishment about nature. Science has been present in human society for long enough in an organized way, but our regard to it drastically changed. It has for a long time been a means for inquiry and an epitome of intellectualism, open mindedness and a sign of liberty from the shackles of dogma. It was a way for certain curious minds to stand out from the crowd and celebrate the power of imagination, the zest of inquiry and the felicity of discovery. Natural philosophy was an attempt to understanding the underlying laws of nature not only in a physical sense but also in a spiritual sense. In essence it was about the unification of mind and matter. Science or more precisely scientific thinking like every other conviction carving method has been struggling with protecting its integrity and disciples from adversaries e.g. political and theological institutions. This struggle specially became hazardous after the collapse of Western Roman Empire when science fell into the abyss in western Europe and re-surfaced with the Renaissance. With the Renaissance science got the space to breathe again more freely although at this time science did not make any attempt to overshadow the theological authority but peacefully co-existed with the traditional system of thought and even disguised itself in a priesthood fashion trying to explain the nature and its laws in the context provided by religion in reconciliation with religious authorities. Eventually society at a larger scale became aware of the fact that human society needs more than an abstract idea about the existence and life. The communities of humans became more and more skeptic of classic theological and mythical explanation of life and nature, thus, started putting serious doubts in all that. This sentiment took momentum when science and technology started impacting lives in a practical fashion towards the end of 19th century which was to a great extent an outcome of industrial revolution. This is when science starts holding a firm grip on shaping the world view of the masses. The large acceptance of science and technology by common folks was a pleasant achievement and brought a certain level of confidence and eventually haughtiness into the intellectual faculties. Now it was the time for science to proclaim glory and take back the rein for leading the hearts and minds of the masses. This magnified self-image led to the fantasy of omniscience where a godlike persona given to scientific institutions would give the impression that scientific community is going all in, in its war against classical institutions were deistic gods were in charge and now science is trying to claim the dominance over nature and everything in it including human entities. Sadly, this brazen attitude is against the whole purpose of science which actually was and is providing a sense of intellectual liberty in inquiring the nature and its laws, not defining a form of authority over it. The all-knowing and all powerful self given image in scientific community is conspicuously visible when we encounter the immature cocky claims from known scientific figures such as Simon Newcomb a Canadian-American astronomer who in 1888 wrote: ‘We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy’, or in 1900 William Thomson, Lord Kelvin claims : ‘There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.’ Needless to say that all that rant were brutally dismissed not long after by the emergence of quantum physics and relativity theory among others.
One shouldn’t be under the slightest delusion that scientists or highly educated individuals are deprived of any type of prejudice and they merely function based on logic and rational thinking. It might be true that in the context of forming an idea supporting a certain conviction an educated individual resort to axioms in a scientific form but in no sense one is deprived of bias in their interpretation of those axioms and how they are put together in support of one’s conviction. On the contrary prejudice is in human nature, it stems from reptilian brain which is responsible for self-preserving behavior patterns and a scientist is no exception and is fundamentally biased by nature. This bias will drastically affect the outcome of any sort of thinking process. As was shown in above quotes from known scientists and will be depicted more in detail in the next section.
The story
The impudence and its biased outcome is nothing new in the history of science. Issac Newton and Robert Hooke are two known scientific figures, both English contemporaries. Issac Newton is needless of introduction, his giant footprint persists to this day in the fields of mathematics and physics, although to a greater extent he was interested and invested in theology and chemistry or more precisely alchemy which is a lesser known fact to even academically educated people in science. Newton also established classical mechanics in his famous book called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). Recall that prior to modern science, study of physical laws of nature was called natural philosophy, hence the name of Newton’s book. On the other hand we have Robert Hooke a polymath whose extensive work in the nature of deformation of materials and structures set the foundation of what today’s engineers know as the theory of elasticity. He published his observations in 1679 in a paper called ‘De Potentia Restitutiva, or of Spring’ where he stated his famous quote ‘ut tensio sic vis’ (‘as the extension so the force’) which is the gist of the theory of elasticity or as has been known for more than three hundred years ‘Hooke’s law’. Although Hooke’s law is of enormous utility to today’s engineers, this law didn’t see much of progress up to 120 years after the death of Robert Hooke. Among all other undoubtedly complex reasons behind this lack of progress one curious reason is the negative personal influence of Newton which rooted in bitter enmity between Hooke and Newton. Newton’s image of himself as a gentleman-philosopher, who is not considered an applied scientist as opposed to Hooke, well constituted him to loathe Hooke and everything he represented down to and including elasticity. The enmity is said to be started with the Newton’s first publication of Principia Mathematica in 1687 that led to Hooke’s request from Newton to be given credit for the book’s content, resulting in Newton’s flat out denial. Hooke believed the law that we know today as the third law of Newton i.e. “for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” is inspired by his theory of elasticity i.e. ‘as the extension so the force’ published in 1679 (an informed reader may know this law in its mathematical form as mass-spring equation F=kx where F is the force, k is the spring constant and x is the spring extension or compression). Given that Newton lived up to 25 years after Hooke’s death he did not spare a chance to destroy Hooke’s memory. Myth has it that Newton went as far as sending for Hooke’s only existing portrait to be destroyed. Although a myth, it can clearly show the depth of prejudice and its detrimental impact on a useful theory such as elasticity, keeping it from progress for years. The lack of progress in elasticity was regretfully felt by french engineers in 18th century when despite the immaturity of the theory they still attempted to apply it to their structural designs which led to failed structures. It was only later in 19th century when Navier formulated theory of elasticity in a usable mathematical form.
In another more recent story we have the stand off of the giants of the 20th century. Determinism of traditional conservatives i.e. Albert Einstein and his fellows as opposed to uncertain and probabilistic viewpoint advocated by Niels Bohr and his protégés in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Simply put quantum mechanics theory suffered from the lack of visualization which was in staunch contrast with what traditional scientists were used to. For traditionalists the incapacity of visualization goes against the whole purpose of science which is understanding the nature through visualization using abstract mathematical models. This conflict between two generations brought about the famous confrontation of conservatives led by Einstein who publicly hated Bohr’s ideas of atom who was in turn leading the new revolutionary science. In this confrontation two sides were represented by two of the greatest names known to the world of physics who viewed each other with strong contempt. On Bohr’s side the representative was no one but the German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg. On the other side for conservatives there stood the Austrian physicist and philosopher Erwin Schrödinger. Schrödinger developed the model of the atom in a mathematical form as we today call Schrödinger’s wave equation. His model allowed the visualization of atom as a cloud-like wave of energy vibrating around the atom. The picture of atom given by Schrödinger’s equation although quaint was well received by other traditional physicists since it gave an image of atom helping them to use their intuition. Heisenberg strongly believed atom was so complex and quaint that it’s ridiculous to be visualized through a “simple” wavelike model. He actually believed that the whole idea of visualization of atom is absurd and should be dropped completely. He Realized that not only atom defied the whole attempts to visualization but it also defied the whole foundation of mathematics. In an intense collaboration with a colleague of his in university of Göttingen for several months, they developed a whole new theory of the atom that today we call ‘Matrix Mechanics’. This theory where atom was explained in complex arrays of numbers allowed Heisenberg and his mentor Bohr to predict the behavior of atom. For traditionalists such as Einstein this looked like pure fiction, the atom can’t possibly be just numbers they argued. The confrontation between both sides went from a gentle polite intellectual exchange of ideas to full fledged vicious attacks and insults. Heisenberg wrote in a letter to Pauli “The more I reflect on the physical portion of Schrödinger’s theory the more disgusting I find it. What Schrödinger writes on the visualizability of his theory is probably not quite right. In other words, it’s crap.” and as a hit back Scsrödinger also said he “Finds Heisenberg’s mathematics monstrous and repulsive.” This enmity built up to an extent where in 1926 when Schrödinger was going to give a lecture on his theory, Heisenberg traveled to Munich to attend his lecture and confront him. Heisenberg was set to come face to face with Schrödinger and not only prove him wrong but completely destroy his theory. In his lecture Schrödinger presents his theory of wave mechanics where he describes how using his equation is possible to visualize a physical picture of atom where waves of electrons surround the atomic nucleus. To Heisenberg who firmly believes atom can not possibly be pictured, the presentation looks idiotic. It is said that at the end of the lecture Heisenberg delivers an offensive attack to Schrödinger and mocks his theory. The audience -mostly traditional physicist- happy to be able to see a picture of atom through Schrödinger’s theory boo Heisenberg and shut him down. Heisenberg has his confidence shattered and desperate goes back to Bohr seeing themselves confronted by the whole scientific community. Heisenberg goes on developing what we know today as “Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle” where he establishes the limit to what can be known by us about the subatomic world. To this day it remains one of the most unsettling facts about how nature behaves in subatomic scale. Later in the autumn of 1927 Heisenberg and Bohr confidently come to take on conservatives in Solavy Conference and at the end they brush away all arguments of conservatives such as Einstein by counter arguments and were regarded as glorious by the participants.
Outro
The insatiable thirst of humans for understanding and finding the meaning of life convinced them to find new ways to inspect their surroundings, yet the desire for certainty led them to rivet the wings of imagination to conviction. This latter leads one to yearn for believing what was found was the last piece of the puzzle that completes the map of life. Now we are at a point where science and technology rule not only the minds but the hearts of people. The great technological breakthroughs that facilitated the lives of many and saved the lives of so many others brought so much comfort and relief that the bigger portion of minds likes to think “that’s it, that’s the answer to our age old questions”. The comfort brought by science and technology is so chilling that one may not even fathom the idea, this might not be the end to our quest for meaning. The reason to this closure seeking sentiment is twofold. The first fold is, the individual is in awe of unknowns, it is disturbing for the mind to come to terms with the fact that the uncertainty is an innate property of nature. The individual by design and subconsciously seeks to survive and this trait turns the individual to be cautious in stepping into unknowns where the risk of demise may lie. The second fold is, on the contrary the same mind is simultaneously appalled by idleness and seeks to evolve and progress to find new horizons. The imagination is so resourceful that one can not idly overlook infinite many other possibilities that may lie in the recesses of one’s consciousness. So every time one soul finds a closure to put its own mind to rest temporarily, other souls look at it in jest and define an overture to new world of probabilities and this cycle goes on and on creating recurring patterns one may call history, the others call multiverse and some might call it parallel universes depending on the conviction their imagination might be locked to.
Science played a so major role in the advancement of the societies that it became a reliable resort for majority of individuals in alleviating their perplexity about existence. At some point the power of science and the efficiency of technology in replacing the traditional world views and orders became so compelling that it was seen unintelligent not to chip in, in favor of science humbly. The caveat is, unquestioned trust put in any order comes with a price. The closure seeking side of one’s mind creates a culture where one sees a great blind appraisal and acceptance for science-labeled rants and all that seems to be emanating from it or distantly related to it without assessment or even daring to suggest one. One should not for a moment overlook the bias introduced in scientific process inadvertently or willingly by individuals involved in the process. The ostentatious admiration and reverence of science can be and is easily exploited in favor of exhibitionist, power thirsty and biased individuals to confiscate the right of thinking in favor of selected communities resulting in ostracizing scientifically unorthodox ideas. The right of inquiry should not be exclusive to certain institutions or organizations providing them with the privilege in depicting the map of life in favor of biased agendas with impunity. Failing to notice that institutionalized conviction carving, would lead to instances such as “Spanish inquisition”, will give rise to more traumatizing experiences. Sense of inquiry and marvel is human nature and the institutions should democratize “critical thinking and inquiry” not acceptance and authority of science. What we are faced with today is the organised and selective scientific approach, discouraging the sense of inquiry in favor of acceptance. Science has been so comforting that we forgot the whole idea of science was investigation and probe by delving in to what might seem trivial at the first glance. People should be encouraged to question and doubt, not accept and follow. Individuals should not be of certain stature and size to be allowed to question the veracity of ideas one call’s scientific facts and on the other hand individuals in scientific disguise should not look down on other form of visualization by forgetting the possible biased nature of their own outlook. Newton allowed himself to denigrate Hooke and his ideas preventing the progress of one of the most useful mechanical theories for more than a century out of contempt, and he was probably lauded for his fierce determination by his peers, simply because of his status. Einstein and his fellows confronted Bohr and his team and tried to prove each other wrong. One group trying to dominate the other intellectually may seem the way forward in forging new paths of meaning for a brighter future, although on this path one should never forget to keep one’s prejudice in check. Maybe if those brilliant minds tried to unify their visions we would have had a whole different vision of sub-atomic world today.
Everybody has the right to venture to be incorrect. One must surround oneself by other individuals only to picture them as distant mountains and express oneself in order to hear the echo of oneself in the form of other people’s opinions. This is a reliable way using which one can liberate oneself from the bitterness of a world trying to mold one into unwelcome shapes.
In this context it is worth to quote German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who once said: “You have your way I have my way as for the right way the correct way and the only way it does not exist”.
Don’t be biased, it’s bad for you.
References:
- “The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry” by Rupert Sheldrake.
- “Structures or why things don’t fall down” by J E Gordon.
- “Atom: S1 E1: The clash of the titans”, Documentary, presented by professor Jim Al-Khalili.
- “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, by Friedrich Nietzsche.
- “The Strangest Man: The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom” by Graham Farmelo.
