In a recent edition of Skeptical Inquirer (Vol 32, Iss. 4) there’s an article by Massimo Pigliucci titled ‘Alternative Science‘. He discusses an idea put forth by Kyle Stanford called ‘epistemic instrumentalism‘ which he describes/explains as - “…we can go ahead and use scientific theories to make sense of the world, predict the outcome of experiments, and even build bridges and planes, so long as we don’t really believe what those theories say about how the world really is. Scientific progress, then, is re-conceived as the production of theories that are better and better as instruments of prediction about and manipulation of the world, but not as a march toward the truth.”
The concept behind this is something called ‘unconceived alternatives‘. This is the idea that there may be a better theory/way to explain a current scientific theory (say evolution for ex.) but perhaps it simply hasn’t occurred to anyone yet. As Massimo puts it “After all, one only needs to point out that all scientific theories proposed and accepted in the past turned out to be wrong, which is why they were replaced by the theories we currently think are right. But what makes us think that the trend is somehow going to stop?“
From my perspective, admitting that we have the ability to understand all there is is in itself a form of belief. A faith of sorts. It seems that we’re always in a search for what is right. Even now, as I contemplate the ‘wrongness’ of my various points, I somehow wish for my view to carry more ‘rightness’, and legitimately feel that my ideas are somehow more advanced than what they previously were. We’re always looking to be better, both personally and collectively …expecting to be smarter as time goes on. It’s a natural way of growing isn’t it …to become more than what we were? Isn’t that the definition of progress …moving/advancing past a previous mark? What would be the point of living if we merely maintained the status quo?
We need to advance. Science does this by providing a system that intrinsically promotes development while allowing new theories to take the place of old ones. The illusion though, is that there is a goal that we must ultimately reach. A ‘final theory’. I think this is a paradox of sorts, and is what moves Science into the area of Religion …searching for and conceiving of an ultimate truth.
Religion is (among many other things) an explanation of and for our life. It’s a belief in more than what we can understand on our own - a belief that gets us past the stumbling block of ‘not knowing’. It allows us the realization that we will, one day, know. ‘Not knowing’ frightens us …and both Science and Religion give comfort to this. In Science, ‘not knowing’ is accepted as normal, with the expectation that we will, like Religion, know …eventually. It will be solved. Although they both pull us forward and can equally be argued as advancing, I happen to feel that Science is, in a way, self-correcting - opposed to Religion that seems to be based more on preset guidelines, interpretations and personal choice. That’s not to say that Science is not interpreted or chosen, but rather that Science has the ability to change and/or diverge from its guidelines, allowing scientific ‘beliefs’ to be re-conceived over time, as Pigliucci mentions.
It’s this re-conceiving that allows Science to stay on top of things, and our march toward the truth should not necessarily imply a final destination - or a truth for that matter. That should be something reserved for Religion.
The march itself is Science …goal by goal.