Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
A Tapestry of Essays
by
Robin Wilding
Nature’s Laws
The search for understanding the world, both around and within us has a long history. When
we can find a pattern in events and attribute them all to the same cause it brings a satisfying
order to our lives. For example, the start of a new cycle of growth in woods and fields is simply
understood to be caused by Spring, the thaw after winter. When one observation can be
explained in general terms which also explains many other similar observations, that
generalisation has been called a “law”. Spring is just one of Nature’s Laws’. The order imposed
by this law is maintained by some person, perhaps God or Mother Nature and is therefore
stable, fixed and dependable. It holds promises of other laws out there, perhaps yet to be
discovered.
But such laws as we think we find, are of our own construction. Generalisations are not
concrete laws, they are our best efforts to explain events and subject at any time to being
revised or even replaced. Yet many scientists are drawn towards the idea of a Law for
Everything. It would be a law of all laws, a higher level, all embracing law which like a
commandment, prescribes what can happen in the universe. The appeal of a single overarching
law of everything is not that far, in mind set, from the appeal of a single God, Lord of
everybody. Both are authoritative, final and may be written in stone.
We have seen in Chapter 1 how the foundations of science are rooted in those of
religion. The belief in the scientific method shines through with evangelical zeal in the writings
of Peter Atkins. “Scientist, with their implicit trust in reductionism, are privileged to be at the
summit of knowledge and to see further into the truth than any of their contemporaries... Poets
merely entertain self deception.... and theologians have contaminated truth and wasted the time
of those who wish to understand the world.” He continues to claim that physics and chemistry
are able to answer, at the deepest level, all questions that could arise in any enquiry. We may be
consoled to read on, that this does not mean we will “exterminate history, law and so on ... We
need recourse to these more superficial domains because the deeper scientific account would
be too cumbersome for daily use”. This is an extreme example of faith in the existence of
rational law whose fundamental nature will be revealed only by fundamental reductionist
processes.
Discovery by induction
The scientific method for establishing “best-explanations” was given several particular
refinements by Francis Bacon. He believed that knowledge had to be worked for. It was not
there lying about waiting to be noticed. One had to devise conditions which would allow
observations to be carefully recorded. Bacon promoted the scientific experiment, which sets
out to answer a particular question. The question needs to take us beyond our current
knowledge but it also has to be within range of an answer. The crucial refinement attributed to
Bacon is to require that from many observations of each experiment, a logical process of
reasoning will induce a generalisation, an overall understanding of process, perhaps even a law
governing all such processes. The induction of a generalisation from many observations has
become the foundation upon which modern science claims to be based.
Induction applied
Imagine that a new analgesic (pain killer) has been produced by adding codeine to aspirin, and
we want to test whether the combination tablet is really any better than aspirin alone. We could
observe volunteer patients with toothache taking either one of the two tablets ( aspirin or
aspirin plus codeine). We could watch carefully and get a feeling or even speculate on what is
probably the better analgesic. If there were a group of us we might find opinion was divided,
our competitive instincts might arise and our voices become raised in debate or even argument.
Some might claim that they have evidence of having actually witnessed the dramatic
improvement after taking a particular tablet. This is what is called “anecdotal evidence” and it is
very weak. Recall how damaging and widespread the practice of blood letting was, no doubt
Against Method
During John Horgan’s odyssey to visit great scientists of today he encountered Paul
Feyerabend whom he dubs “the anarchist of philosophy”. Feyerabend wrote an unusual book
titled “Against Method”. It argues that there is no way of doing science which is logically
defendable or exclusive. Scientist do whatever is necessary to advance their knowledge. In this
process anything goes. He was afraid of the dogma of science and its power to reduce human
thought and culture. The compulsive search for certainty too often led to tyranny. The attitude
of self-righteousness and certitude which made Nazism possible is still with us and accounts
for continued nuclear armament and war. The conceit with western progress justifies the
exploitation of nature and primitive cultures. There is no difference, Feyerabend claims,
between such “benefactors of mankind” and the henchmen of Auschwitz.
Feyerabend noted that many primitive people like the San bushmen had done perfectly well
without science. There was no validity in the claim that superior western knowledge
automatically conferred a better lifestyle. The San lived in peace amongst themselves and in
harmony with nature.
I find this a refreshing and enlightened view from a scientist. Even if he has a maverick view on
scientific method, Feyerabend does not deserve Horgan’s epithet “the anarchist”. Feyerabend
had a glimpse of the shadow of our past, and realised that the henchman are still with us.
Summary
Scientific method has a long history which remains influential today. The struggle for reason
over dogma, for evidence over hearsay and for detached observation instead of intuition has
been worthwhile and largely successful. It has enabled the people of the Western world to
develop life-improving technologies and a rich understanding of natural phenomena. Scientists
have good reason to believe that the process which has brought us so far, will take us the rest of
the way. Yet there is a discomfort both within and outside the scientific community. In John
Horgan’s book “The End of Science” he reveals a mixture of despair and arrogance in the