The Blind Men and the Elephant

How a parable about religious tolerance demonstrates the necessity of scientific inquiry.

India has always been the crossroads of religion. It’s given birth to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sufi Islam. It’s home to gurus, fakirs, yogis, monks, mystics, and at least one parable on the need for religious tolerance. Centuries later, it shows us why science is better than belief.

When the eponymous blind men encounter an elephant, each describes it a different way, based on his limited information. One grabs the tail and concludes that it’s a rope. Another feels the elephant’s rough and knobby knee, declaring it a tree trunk. The third feels its writhing trunk and thinks it a snake. So on and so forth, with none of them able to put the pieces together.

It’s supposed to show us how every belief system contains a tiny fragment of an otherwise unknowable whole. All beliefs are equally, if only partially, right.

Put another way, all beliefs are equally wrong.

However, we should also consider how the blind men could have formed more correct conclusions. First, they could have tried to explain all of the evidence, not just their own observations. What sort of thing might appear as a snake, a tree, and a rope? Herein lies the value of an open scientific community.

More importantly, each man should have tried to falsify their theory, not just confirm it. Had the man who thought he held a snake tried to find its head, he would have found the elephant’s mouth instead. The man who though he leaned against a tree could have tried to find its roots or branches.

This is what separates science from all previous forms of intellectual endeavor: Falsification. It’s easy to be wrong and still find confirming evidence. Astrologers have made it an art, but it is not a science.

The best way to be right is to try to prove yourself wrong.