Discussion Group Report

There is a "tendency common to most humans to create abstract concepts such as justice, freedom, love, spirituality, and now, science and animate them all, appearing as antique gods with arrows, swords, or balances in hands," says Andreas Rosenberg in his article, "The Nature of Scientific Inquiry," in the Occasional Newsletter of the Friends of Religious Humanism. "This completes the move of such concepts into the realm of mythology. This move changes how we look at science." It elevates science into an unrealistically inclusive position. It gives the impression that, if you are a rational being, you must use the scientific method in every possible situation. At this point it becomes unclear whether science is the preferred universal tool for a rational being or whether science is just a synonym for rationality. If it becomes just a tool, it becomes very difficult to define when it is appropriate to use it as a label. Is astrology a product of science as a tool? It is logical in its arguments and based on observations. Yet, if we agree that science is not a universal tool but only another name for rationality, then the most primitive aborigines practice science because their behavior within their surroundings is quite rational. It is clear, then, that it is not useful either to consider scientific inquiry as a universal tool or science as a synonym for rationality.

Is scientific inquiry in a nearly mythological context the golden path to truth? Look in the newspaper, and you will see that science can be used to define as true many incompatible statements. One day red wine is good for your health. The next day alcohol use may lead to liver disease. No wonder some lost school board in Kansas has declared creation to be a true scientific theory. Perhaps Winnie the Pooh could be put forth as a theory of small bears. Uncertain and vague statements about science seem to be due to an unnecessary broadening of the definition of scientific inquiry.

In defining scientific inquiry, we first have to identify its goals. If we read texts in physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, and psychology, we find that the goal is always the same: 1) A precise description of the external world with us a part of it, and 2) A description in terms of observations made.

Scientific vocabulary does not contain statements like, "good for you." Thus stories about the usefulness of red wine or the dangers of alcohol have nothing to do with science.

Scientific inquiry is based on two premises, says Rosenberg: 1) There is an external world common to us all-a world existing independent of our observing it. Thus if the human race were obliterated by an intergalactic construction company, the record players booming out Beethoven's Fifth Symphony would continue to play although there are no humans to hear it. Observers from other planets would find ruins of lost cities and all our toys as real as they once were to us. The world exists even without us. We call it the common reality premise. 2) Events in the external world are related to each other by causal connections. Our observations of them are logically related. We call this the causality premise. Science as an art of describing the world around us cannot function if either of these two premises is violated. Are they ever challenged? Yes, the Christian dogma of God's omnipotence and the possibility of his intervention in our time negate the causality premise. The French postmodernists and deconstructionists challenge the common reality premise. "Anytime you hear somebody describing science as a white male power structure and touting the advantages of female science," says the author, "you know the common reality premise has been violated. The structure of the world we observe as scientists is observer-neutral and common to us all. You cannot deconstruct it to different pieces depending on who you are."

Rosenberg summarizes: "Provided common reality exists independent of us and the events show reproducible causality, we can proceed to paint a picture of the world. The process of doing it is scientific inquiry. This inquiry is based solely on past or present observations."

The inquiry itself is practical and takes place in seven consecutive steps: 1) Record observations, 2) Compare observations and convert observations to quantitative measurements (as height or length on a scale-high, higher, highest), 3) Introduce common reference (a standard for weight or using sea level as a base for height measurements), 4) Identify and separate variables ( a variable is some measurable property, conforming to some reasonable scale on which its variation can be defined, 5) Formulate a hypothesis, 6) Convert the hypothesis to a theory, 7) Elevate the theory to the status of a law.

How well is the external world described by the laws derived by the seven-point method? In our assumptions, we assume that all our theories have become laws, and we get dangerously close to describing a totally determined universe that no one believes in any more. What about the presence of randomness, supported by quantum mechanical theory? The author posits, "...what we call randomness and probability are factors introduced to account for the inadequacy of the human senses to deal with a wide variety of observations. There are too many variables for us to observe with necessary precision; due to the limited nature of our senses, we inevitably influence events in measuring them." Many scientists, including Einstein, refused to believe in inherent randomness and preferred to look at apparent randomness as a product of hidden variables. The problem of uncertainty is closely linked to the effect of measurements. We have to visualize events so our senses will allow us to make an observation. This is the major limitation of science.

Scientific inquiry will lead to a true picture of the world surrounding us, but the picture is never complete and has to be continuously amended when and if new observations are made. Can something be true if it has to be amended? Yes, all scientific laws are approximations, and what we mean by amendment is that we have isolated new variables and can work with higher precision than before so that the picture of the world becomes clearer and shows more details. This does not mean that the previous picture was wrong, only that it was true at that level of detail and precision.

The behavioral sciences-sociology, psychology, economics, etc., are currently at a low level of development. There has been plenty of hard work done in them and brilliant insights gained, but their level is simply a function of the complexity of the systems at issue. "The extension of science," Rosenberg states, "to art, poetry, and religion has not contributed much to science or to the arena of human emotions and feelings. Finally, the verbal extension of science into the realm of spirituality...may contribute to literature and poetry, but not to science."