What is Science?

Saw this article on the The New York Times today. It raised for me the disturbing possibility that most people do not actually understand what science is.

The basis of science is a supposition that the universe behaves according to a set of rules that can be ascertained by the human mind through observation, induction, and the scientific method. Intriguingly, this fundamental supposition itself has no external proof, and is tantamount to a belief. The only way we know to "prove" its legitimacy is to actually follow its edicts: in essence, using itself to prove itself, which can seem a bit tautological.

Science resolves to simple statements (with apologies to Descartes) such as "what my senses tell me of the world must be true," or "that which we observe is true." On top of basic observation, science leverages our ability to draw conclusions: "if this happens and so does this, then perhaps they are related." Not so much observations of cause and effect are these, but of juxtaposition, whether temporally, spatially, or conceptually. This is the power of induction: our capacity to derive rules describing the universe based upon our observations.

The scientific method extends the observation and induction from personal assessments of truth (i.e., what "I" have seen to be true) to collective assessments (what "we" have seen).

The specifics of the method itself (developing an hypothesis; defining an experiment; maintaining a control group and an experimental group; rigorous documentation of setup, observations, and findings) are far less important than the principles the method embodies, such as:

• Definitive language. Science speaks with precise, thorough terminology, whether it communicates through the rigor of mathematics or articulate language. The acquisition of knowledge cannot be complete if it is not clear what has been acquired and the limits of its applicability.

• Physical evidence. The documentation produced by a good experiment (or even physical artifacts, if possible) bolster the experimenter's statements about what happened. Good evidence removes the need to "take the experimenter's word" for what happened, allowing others to draw their own conclusions based on their observations of the same evidence.

• Repeatable process. If the sequence of steps from setup to execution to observation in an experiment are sufficiently described and accessible so that other experimenters can attempt to duplicate the results of the initial experiment, then repeatibility bolsters the veracity of the original experiment's conclusions. If the world behaved a certain way once, and if all possible relevant conditions are duplicated and the world behaves the same way again, then there is likely some rule at work that explains the common result from initial common conditions.

• Peer review. Even if others do not attempt to repeat an experiment, if other individuals with similar relevant knowledge as the experimenter can review the accumulated documentation and understand not only how the experiment was constructured but how reasonable the results may be then that is an additional demonstration of the "truth" suggested by the experiment. Visibility into the processes of experimentation lend credibility to their outcomes.
  

So where does that leave us, and what does this have to do with intelligent design?

Intelligent design starts from an hypothesis that is ultimately unverifiable by the tools of science. What is noteworthy about this article is that even though intelligent design is grabbing lots of headlines, it is not garnering the interest of academics or actual research dollars. The intelligent design advocates, although invited, are simply not showing up to the party. And for that very failure to participate, intelligent design is losing favor within academia, which is ironic, considering intelligent design advocates hoped to stir interest in alternate explanations and inquiry into truth.

If I may interpret the import of this article further: the faith of the academy (and by larger extension, society) in science trumps its faith in religion. Too many centuries (millenia, actually) of the demonstrated reliability of the tools of science have persuaded enough of society to believe that science is the surer path to truth.

For just one day—having read this article—I want to feel smug: for just one day, I can believe that the Dark Ages will not return, and that the Renaissance is still in progress.