Skepticism

"[People] are wise in proportion, not to their experience,

but to their capacity for experience"

- James Boswell

One night, when I was about ten years of age, my mom decided to play a game with me and my sister. She had us create fantastical characters (I think I was an elf), and she mapped out a little network of caverns for them to explore, full of treasure and monsters. Then, after describing the surroundings that our characters found themselves in, she asked "what do you decide to do?". 

It was basically a crude version of the role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons ("D&D"). I must have had fun that night because for years afterward I was obsessed with D&D: I played it with my friends whenever I could; I taught myself the official rules; and I even read D&D novels. I don't regret going through this phase (indeed, since an alternative was video gaming, I think that it was decidedly healthy), but I am also amazed to recall how it influenced my view of reality. For example, I remember lamenting how comparatively 'boring' the real world was, and wishing that my life was as exciting as those of the characters in my books. And at one point, I remember flirting with the idea that the gods of the D&D world were real. I even sent little semi-serious prayers to them for a while (don't laugh too hard: one of them was apparently answered).

I like thinking back to this slightly embarrassing point in my life because it reminds why I ought to be truly glad to have aged: although I now live a more stressful and complicated life; although my body has since begun to deteriorate; although nostalgia has become increasingly harder to resist; at least I am no longer quite so naive. So far, this trade-off has proven more than compensatory, if only because the accumulation of knowledge has allowed me to much better appreciate the jaw-dropping nature of the reality that comprises me, and surrounds me in both space and time. And I cherish this savvy all the more for it being the one of the few intrinsic properties I posses that does not face an inevitable decline going into the future.

My love of accumulating knowledge has meant that it was natural for me to develop an appreciation of its most prodigal wellspring - namely: science. And my love of science has, in turn, meant that it was natural for me to take a science-based view of reality - in other words: to become a "skeptic" (for a better feel for the term, watch Micheal Shermer's TED talk On Strange Beliefs).

But skeptical thinking, it seems, does not come so naturally to everybody. In fact, in merely letting science shape my view of reality, I have apparently set myself in philosophical opposition to many of the people I know and meet. Indeed, many of you have openly and vehemently disagreed with me over my philosophy. So, for both our sakes, following are the top three fundamental problems people seem to have with my skepticism, and my official responses to them.

- Science Can't Tell Us Everything -

This point is made in many guises, either to highlight to me the limitations of my personal philosophy, or to imply that something (or everything) that science is telling us could be wrong. For instance. it has been suggested to me that the supposed benefits of acupuncture simply do not reveal themselves to "blinded" scientific testing.

But, intentions aside, I agree: science can't tell us everything. In fact, I would go even further than this and say that it can't tell us anything at all - at least not with absolute certainty. 

The theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss illustrates this point nicely in this cool lecture (t = 50:10) when he points out that, because all the stars and galaxies in the sky are moving ever more quickly away from us, at some point in the distant future they will all become invisible from our own galaxy: the night sky will go black. This, among other things, would make it impossible to observe a key piece of supporting evidence for the "big bang".

What's more, Krauss continues, all the other ways in which a hypothetical future civilization might be able to 'discover' the big bang (including the currently ubiquitous "cosmic microwave background radiation"), and thus the true nature of the cosmos, will eventually become undetectable. Therefore, he says, despite their best efforts, the scientists of these future civilizations

"will derive a picture of the universe which is completely wrong. They will derive a picture of the universe as being one galaxy, surrounded by empty space, that is static and eternal. Falsifiable science will produce the wrong answer."

His point of course is that, even now, we can't assume that science is giving us the whole picture; and he is absolutely right.

However, Winston Churchill once famously said of democracy that it is "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried"; and I think that much the same thing might be truthfully said of science. After all, the universe was not 'made' to be 'discovered' by human beings, just like human beings were not 'made' to be governed. Thus, there is simply no such thing as a 'perfect' method of inquiry - any more than there exists a 'perfect' form of government. Instead, situations like these require us to adopt a 'best-fit' approach: to devise the best system we can, given the often difficult circumstances with which we are forced to work.

Therefore, I agree that science is nothing more than the best method of inquiry that is currently available to us, but maintain that it is also nothing less than this.

And I find it unfortunate that so many seem to dwell on the statement "science can't tell us everything"; while the far more interesting and productive question "what can science tell us?" is so often left begging (witness the [initially promising but ultimately atrocious] 24-part CBC Radio 'Ideas' series How To Think About Science). Is it perfect? No! But for it's purposes, it has beaten out religion, spirituality, astrology, "common sense", and "all those other forms" of inquiry "that have been tried" - hands down.

And if the alleged benefits of acupuncture don't reveal themselves to scientific testing, I am compelled to wonder: to which of these miserable alternatives are they visible?

- Ignorance Is Bliss -

Although never stated in so many words, I frequently encounter people who are more or less of the belief that science has, on the whole, done the human race more harm than it has good.

Sure, they say, it has expanded our understanding of the universe, but it has also brought us atomic weapons; sure, they have allowed us to save innumerable human lives from disease and starvation, but in so doing they have brought down upon us the myriad of intimidating problems associated with overpopulation. "Science", my philosophy instructor once lectured me, "is a double-edged sword".

To those of this mind, it can be tempting to fear and scorn science and technology; to suspect that cellphones cause brain cancer; that vaccines cause autism; that science-based medicine is a leading cause of death. And are we to expect these people to suddenly change their minds when they are told that it has been scientifically determined that their fears are baseless? Of course not - it only aggravates their initial mistrust; and thus do they spiral downward towards pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, and superstition.


In fact, this recent study suggests that people generally tend to accept popular beliefs over scientifically-validated ones. Even worse, the "participants appeared to react against the views of science when evaluating claims". Personally, I think this is because so many people tend to conflate 'science' with aspects of the modern world which they detest - pharmaceutical corporations, industrialization, atomic bombs, and so on - that the very word has acquired an undeserved and yet repulsive taint.

This is unfortunate, and more than a little ironic, since although science is perhaps indirectly responsible for the drawbacks associated with progress, it is undeniably directly responsible for having alerted us to many of them: the rising levels of mercury in our seafood; the 'hole' in the ozone layer; global warming, ocean acidification - all of these things would have remained invisible to us, if not for scientific theorizing and experimentation.

So yes: scientifically-derived knowledge has, is, and likely will continue to be, misused by people; and sometimes tragically. But the march of progress has long since begun, and, realistically,  it won't be stopping anytime soon for anything short of a catastrophe. And by instinctively placing the blame for it's drawbacks on the scientific method, instead of restricting it to those who have misapplied this knowledge, we risk depriving ourselves of our only effective means of seeing, and thus negotiating, the treacherous road ahead.


(The TED talk to watch is Micheal Specter's The Danger of Science Denial)

- Shut Up Already, You Boring Science Nerd -

Right - I'm almost done.

But lastly, it is widely held that people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. And, unfortunately, skeptics are often perceived as 'de-bunkers' who are constantly attacking the innocent beliefs of others (more than once I have even been compelled to explain the difference between 'skepticism' and 'cynicism'). Further, it has been suggested that maybe these beliefs, however misguided, are often 'good' for the people to whom they belong, whether it's because they are seen as comforting, morally inspiring, or what have you.

Needless to say, I see things rather differently. Of course people can believe what they want to believe. But misguided beliefs are not just held; they are disseminated. That's the whole point behind the concept of a "meme" (the TED talk to watch is Dan Dennett's On Dangerous Memes). And my skepticism is the most effective means by which I can protect myself - and all those who might happen to listen to me - from the many misguided notions that are out there; it is the means by which I might expand my "capacity for experience", become wiser, and therefore age more gracefully.

And it is the means by which I hope to continue distinguishing reality from the incomparably unimaginative and dull world of fiction.

(A special thanks to Steven N)