Physicist,
University of Aix-Marseille, France; Author, The First Scientist: Anaximander and the Nature
of Science
The Uselessness of Certainty
There is a widely used notion that
does plenty of damage: the notion of "scientifically proven". Nearly
an oxymoron. The very foundation of science is to keep the door open to doubt.
Precisely because we keep questioning everything, especially our own premises,
we are always ready to improve our knowledge. Therefore a good scientist is
never 'certain'. Lack of certainty is precisely what makes conclusions more
reliable than the conclusions of those who are certain: because the good
scientist will be ready to shift to a different point of view if better
elements of evidence or novel arguments emerge. Therefore certainty is not only
something of no use, but is in fact damaging, if we value reliability.
Failure to appreciate the value of
the lack of certainty is at the origin of much silliness in our society. Are we
sure that the Earth is going to keep heating up, if we do not do anything? Are
we sure of the details of the current theory of evolution? Are we sure that
modern medicine is always a better strategy than traditional ones? No we are
not, in none of these cases. But if from this lack of certainty we jump to the
conviction that we better not care about global heating, that there is no
evolution and the world was created six thousand years ago, or that traditional
medicine must be more effective than the modern medicine, well, we are simply
stupid. Still, many people do these silly inferences. Because the lack of
certainty is perceived as a sign of weakness, instead of being what it is: the
first source of our knowledge.
Every
knowledge, even the most solid, carries a margin of uncertainty. (I am very
sure about my own name ... but what if I just hit my head and got momentarily
confused?) Knowledge itself is probabilistic in nature, a notion emphasized by
some currents of philosophical pragmatism. Better understanding of the meaning
of probability, and especially realizing that we never have, nor need,
'scientifically proven' facts, but only a sufficiently high degree of
probability, in order to make decisions and act.
The Tsar thinks he's right all right, but as a registered Republican, he is embarrassed to admit that it is Republicans who are most likely to be "simply stupid."
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't believe in "global warming" as posited by the chicken littles, I believe firmly that we must act like it is happening. The benefits are too great to miss just because of stubbornness. If we don’t do something about the pollution of our world sooner rather than later, then we are “simply stupid.”
In health, success is all that matters. Why should we care whether the successful medicine or procedure is old, new, Western, Eastern, or Wiki. If it works, then do it. If you don’t, then you’re “simply stupid.”
And don’t get me started on why we should or should not accept human behavior because of a word or phrase in a bible of any religions, or a constitution for that matter. It’s “simply stupid.”
But, then, most of us are stupid in one way or another, aren’t they?
TsarPat
Dear Tsar,
ReplyDeleteYour misuse of the indefinite pronoun "they" (should have been "we") was a clever way of denying your own stupidity. However, your comments make a lot of sense. Therefore, you must have been quoting someone else who is not stupid. Am I right?
Ha, it's hard to put one over on the great Thinker. I, of course, was trying to absolve myself from the litany of stupidity I was describing.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe it was a sloppy job of editing.
I don’t get paid for the stuff, y’know.
TsarPat