SECTION VIII Chapter 2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the "Scientific" Paradigm "For the faithful, empirical inquiry is unnecessary, a distraction from the practice of his religion and possibly a source of dangerous heresy." -- Tertullian "To discuss the nature and position of the earth, does not help us in our hope of the earth to come." -- St. Ambrose "The church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." -- Ferdinand Magellan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Carl Sagan "All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have." -- Albert Einstein "If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong." – Richard Feynman "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer Platonic vs Aristotelian Outlook on Search for Truths Since the time of the ancient Greeks, philosophers have disagreed "HOW" to go about searching for ultimate truths. In our quest for knowledge and truth: (1) Should we rely on our senses to scientifically inquire into the nature of the universe? Or instead, (2) Should we employ more MYSTICAL methods, as there are truths out there that can NEVER be discovered through science? Plato championed the anti-scientific, mystical view that the ultimate truths of the universe can NEVER be learned through observation and experimentation. Plato used the analogy of a man who had been tied up all of his life in a cave--with his face to the back wall of the cave. Plato argued that the only "reality" perceived by the man consisted of the fleeting shadows on the wall of the cave, instead of the "real" objects behind him. According to Plato, we are all similarly limited in using our physical sensations from detecting ultimate reality, as these are fleeting at best. Therefore, only philosophers--who look deep within the mystical realm of the soul--can discover absolute truths. In PHAEDO, Plato puts these words in the mouth of Socrates: "If we are ever to know anything absolutely, we must be free from the body and behold the actual realities with the eye of the soul alone... While we live we shall be nearest to knowledge when we avoid, so far as possible, intercourse and communion with the body, except what is absolutely necessary, and are not infected by its nature, but keep ourselves free from it until God himself sets us free." Per Plato, only eternal "Ideals" or "essences"--such as the Good, the Beautiful, and Truth--are the real absolutes. Existing in a divine realm, and separate from our world of sensations, these "Ideals" represent "pure" and "real" values. For example, when we look at a cat, we are seeing only an imperfect form of the essential cat--for this cat will someday grow old and die. But the essential "Idea" of the cat will always remain. And it is this Ideal that is the only real and permanent reality. Plato's philosophy became known as "Realism" because it maintained that there are universal symbols (or "Ideals") that represent ultimate reality. The implications of Plato's paradigm was that scientific investigation in this world is NOT a meaningful endeavor, as our senses can NOT be trusted as INPUTS to man's reasoning capacity! Plato believed that only philosophers had the insight to discover ultimate truths. Therefore it followed that the common people needed to be ruled by a small elite group of philosophers who would rule society as authoritative, but "enlightened" leaders. Plato believed that society should be tightly regulated. Even the arts should be controlled, as he feared these might bring out the emotional passions in the common people. Per Plato, "[Poetry] feeds and waters the passions rather than drying them up; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind is ever to increase in happiness and virtue." Plato's pupil, Aristotle, did not agree with his teacher's paradigm that all ultimate reality emanates from a metaphysical realm beyond our sensory experiences. Instead, Aristotle upheld the "scientific" view, that at least SOME important truths, could be obtained through using our SENSES in studying nature around us. In his famous METAPHYSICS, Aristotle argued that there are TWO kinds of knowledge--the first employs the objective collection of data or evidence (inductive reasoning). The other uses logic or reasoning to draw basic conclusions from the evidence (deductive reasoning). For example, our senses can tell us that there is a table in the room with us. However we employ logic or reasoning, in deducing that two plus two is always four. Aristotle's philosophy or paradigm became known as Nominism, because it argued that Plato's abstract Ideals exist only "in name". That is, Plato's "Ideals" do not possess any existence on their own outside the range of human thought. Instead, observation and deduction are a better source of discovering truths in the universe. Platonic thought and its premise of a soul "from a divine realm from above" became extremely popular during pagan times. Through Roman philosophers such as Plotinus, the rational role of one's mind in discovering truth, was replaced with the ecstatic irrational feelings of one's interconnectivity with the universe. Plotinus' version of Platonism became known as Neo-platonism. Neo-platonism greatly appealed to Orthodox Christian theologians such as the saints Ambrose and Augustine. During the Middle Ages, the platonic distrust of our human senses became the paradigm through which Western Christendom came to view the world around them. It is no coincidence, that during the Middle Ages, Aristotle's writings had become completely lost in the West. (Aristotle was not reintroduced in the West until the Crusades brought Western Europe into contact with Muslim civilization--which had preserved Aristotle's writings). Medieval Paradigm Towards "Authorities" During the Middle Ages, the medieval man followed the Platonic paradigm in looking towards AUTHORITIES (now defined as Christian authorities) to give him his foundation of knowledge. REASON might be applied to these authoritative pronouncements, to answer the question at hand. However, no one questioned the premises of the authorities themselves without being severely reprimanded-- or worse, accused of heresy. The middle ages has been dubbed by some as a "footnote to Plato" because of the strong hold the Platonic paradigm held on medieval minds in their disdain for scientific observation. The following story found in a medieval manuscript serves to illustrate this point. A group of medieval scholars were debating how many teeth were in a horse's mouth. To answer the question, each person stood up and cited their favorite authority--but there was sill NO agreement. A junior member of the group, then suggested that the group should go outside and simply "COUNT" a horse's teeth--to resolve the question once and for all! Upon hearing this, the rest of the group became so alarmed that, according to the manuscript, they "fell upon him, smote him hip and thigh, and cast him from the company of educated men." (quoted by James Trefil, READING THE MIND OF GOD, IN SEARCH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALITY, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1989, pp33-4. Note: The above story/parody was found in a compilation of science essays attributed to Francis Bacon. As there is no independent verification that the event actually took place, there is a good likelihood this was a parody to make fun of Scholastics, rather than an actual event.) During the Late Middle Ages/Renaissance, the discovery of Greek and Roman manuscripts (such as Aristotle's writings) presented a new set of authoritative figures to quote from. Aristotle's writings were pronounced heretical by the Catholic Church when they first came out. It was the work of St. Thomas Aquinas and others to "reconcile" Aristotle's ideas with the teachings of the Catholic Church--thus making them acceptable within Catholic doctrine. To guarantee that one's reasoning would not conflict with Church dogma, Aquinas carefully defined the LIMITS of reasoning to NEVER question the basic assumptions of Church doctrine. The purpose of reasoning was to EXPAND knowledge on matters of Church doctrine--never to question or subvert these. Aquinas and his followers, the Scholastics, were also prepared to ignore observation--using instead the sayings from authorities as the basis from which to deduce their new truths. (Aristotle had emphasized deduction over observation in his philosophy; still he held SOME role for observation.) The Renaissance was sparked from the realization by a few bold individuals that possibly no one authority really held ALL the "true" answers.--That, instead, it might be possible for one to "improve" on the ideas of the ancient authorities, by SCIENTIFICALLY examining the world around us. True, God was involved in this process. However God shared in these new discoveries through granting the "gift of genius" to selected individuals. This break in the medieval authoritarian paradigm was met by stiff opposition from religious and secular bodies alike! Plato's paradigm was invoked to argue that OUR SENSES COULD NOT BE TRUSTED IN QUESTIONING AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS. After all, our senses could never impart the ultimate "truths"--or explanations of "why" the universe existed as such. Thus, when the Renaissance scientist, Galileo, proposed to use the newly invented telescope to look out into the sky to question whether the earth moved around the sun, it was his "scientific" approach that greatly angered the authorities. According to Galileo: "I think that in the discussions of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations." According to Pope Urban VIII, Galileo's approach to truth in natural matters had it exactly BACKWARDS! --Not only should one begin with the authorities on SPIRITUAL matters--but on matters OF THIS WORLD as well. The pope spoke angrily how Galileo dared to assert that: "in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin NOT FROM THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES but from sense experience and necessary demonstrations." (emphasis mine) The conventional wisdom held that the senses in such matters could NOT be trusted! Indeed, it was argued that Galileo's telescope could "alter" the TRUE appearance of things. The only "guaranteed" method of arriving at the truth, was from theological reasoning, based upon the holy texts of scripture and the doctrines of Church authorities, such as St. Augustine. Early scientists such as Galileo had to justify that their endeavor to understand "how" something worked added to our foundation of knowledge-- even if this did NOT answer the ultimate questions of "why" --ie, the "CAUSES" of why it happened. Thus, when Galileo studied the acceleration of fallen bodies, he wrote how, "the cause of the acceleration of the motion of falling bodies is not a necessary part of the investigation." Likewise, when Isaac Newton came upon his law of gravitation, he had to explain that it was not necessary to understand "why" it worked. Instead, based upon his experimentation, "it is enough that gravity really does exist, and acts according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies and of our sea." (as quoted by John D. Barrow, THE WORLD WITHIN THE WORLD, Oxford University Press, 1990, p 86) To validate the new scientific method, philosophers had to first establish the paradigm that relying on sensory information to understand "how" things worked was an EQUAL, (if not "better") source of knowledge--than relying on the authority/revelation of others. This paradigm "shift" had its beginnings in the Renaissance. Still, it was not until the Enlightenment in England, that philosophers laid down the foundation for the "scientific method". John Locke, was one of the most important of these new "Enlightened" philosophers. Locke argued that all of our thoughts and ideas are derived from SENSORY experience-- ie from sight, touch, smell, etc. He determined that most objects to which we give names are NOT represented in the mind as distinct ideas (as Plato had argued)--but instead are clusters or groupings of ideas learned from experience. These are then recombined in different ways. Locke proposed that we should employ our senses, and then TEST the results--to determine whether they are really true or not. Locke's philosophy was not anti-religious. For it also assumed the existence of a divine/spiritual realm-- and in the possibility that special individuals could receive revelations from this source from time to time. Locke's point, was that it was difficult for others to know whether or not one actually had a "true" revelation or not. Therefore, revelation was not a 100% reliable method for obtaining truth. The successor to Locke's philosophy, David Hume, applied Locke's philosophy to its logical extreme--to take the (unpopular) skeptical stance that ALL knowledge must be based 100% from sensory experience--for it to be valid. Per Hume, "all the laws of nature and all the operations of bodies WITHOUT EXCEPTION are known only by experience." (emphasis mine) Hume's position was considered shocking--not only because of its implications towards theology--but because of its attitude towards science, as well. For the sciences generally accept the premise that knowledge can be discovered through BOTH sensory experiences AND theories based on induction. (It will be recalled that induction is the process whereby one "infers" from a limited number of observations--a general law.) However, though induction may give us some knowledge, per Hume, this would never be 100% accurate, unless it could be confirmed through physical observation. Philosophers have debated the importance of induction and certainty ever since. Most scientists today accept that some knowledge may be obtained by INDIRECTLY looking at clues, to STATISTICALLY access the likelihood of a theory being true. (For example, scientists conducted thousands of studies that STATISTICALLY pointed to a link between cigarette smoking and cancer -- before being able to prove in the laboratory how smoking DIRECTLY mutates cells at the genetic level.) Scientists generally accept that, in many scientific endeavors, it will never be possible to reach 100% certainty (at least during their lifetimes.) Therefore, their goal is to strive for the greatest possible knowledge that is humanly possible--even if this is far short of 100% certainty. It is the EXPANSION and IMPROVEMENT of knowledge that is the ultimate goal of science. For some individuals, however, this conclusion is unacceptable!. If science cannot give us 100% of knowledge--then one should switch to using more mystical/spiritual methods in order to find the ultimate answers to mankind's questions. Science as a Limitation on the Full Realm of Our Existence--or, "Is Science Missing the Big Picture?" As we have seen, the philosopher Plato believed that the sensory experiences of this world are not important -- that the "real" truths exist in another, more "spiritual" realm of existence. During the Enlightenment, the philosopher, Immanuel Kant, attempted to merge both the platonic and scientific paradigms into his philosophy. Kant agreed that while the scientific method was useful in acquiring knowledge, still there is SOME knowledge that is acquired by humans upon our existence at the time of birth (ie "a priori"). Kant used this observation as a proof that there is another realm--more spiritual/mystical in nature--that serves as another source of knowledge and morality for humans. Our moral feelings could tap into this spiritual realm, to discover truths that our heads did not necessarily understand. Today, most individuals would agree that science's findings have proven that sensory experience CAN be an important source of knowledge. However, it has ALSO been argued that science's objectivity in viewing the world around us, can be a weakness. For the scientific paradigm stubbornly refuses to seriously acknowledge the existence of another realm that is mysterious/ supernatural in nature-- and therefore "undetectable" by the application of scientific tools. This means science is missing the "bigger picture".--It deals only at the surface of nature, as opposed to penetrating through its very essence to the inner core of reality. Opponents of science are diverse in how they would resolve this problem. Some argue that science should remain unchanged--except that it should be undertaken in a more "humane" light (which is of course open to many interpretations.) Other critics charge that science should open itself up to new ideas and influences--such as the supernatural. During the early nineteenth century, this latter viewpoint took shape with the formation of the Naturalphilosophie movement. The nature philosophers, as they were then called, believed that they could use raw intellect to comprehend the fundamental truths of the universe. Goethe, though not directly a part of this movement, espoused these ideals when he wrote: "the trouble with modern physics is it wants to perceive nature only through artificial instruments. Man himself, using his healthy senses, is the greatest and most exact physical instrument which there can be." Problems arose with this view, when after everyone tapped into their innate reasoning, there was NO consensus as to what "truths" were obtained. In some cases, later discoveries clearly showed that this "arm-chair" approach to philosophy could clearly lead to erroneous conclusions. For example, the philosopher Hegel (who was a proponent of this school of thought) used pure reason to "prove" that there could ONLY be seven planets in our solar system -- no more -- no less. During this time, only seven planets happened to be known, so that Hegel's natural-philosophical approach happened to be in sync with then scientific thought. Of course, Neptune and Pluto have been discovered since this time, placing Hegel's seven planets TWO short of today's' scientific count of NINE planets in our solar system. Strengths of Science The foundation of the scientific method is based on the goal of obtaining OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE. Science comes up with theories on the nature of the universe--but these must be testable, communicated, and publicized using empirical data--before they are to be considered "scientific". Knowledge regarding the mystical or spiritual dimension must be measurable in some objective manner before it will be acknowledged as "real". According to the philosopher Karl Popper: "The history of science, like the history of all human ideas, is a history of irresponsible dreams, of obstinacy, and of error. But science is one of the very few human activities--perhaps the only one--in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. This is why we can say that, in science, we often learn from our mistakes, and why we can speak clearly and sensibly about making progress there. (Popper, CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS) According to the physicist Richard Feynman, science naturally lends itself towards "integrity and honesty": "The only way to have real success in science, the field I'm familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good and what's bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. "In other fields, such as business, it's different. For example, almost every advertisement you see is obviously designed, in some way or another, to fool the customer: the print that they don't want you to read is small; the statements are written in an obscure way. It is obvious to anybody that the product is not being presented in a scientific and balanced way. Therefore, in the selling business, there's a lack of integrity." (Richard P. Feynman, "WHAT DO YOU CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK?"--Further Adventures of a Curious Character, as told to Ralph Leighton, Bantom Books, November 1989, pp 217-8) The ancient Greeks were generally more interested in abstract speculation, than they were in objectively collecting and testing data. Other civilizations, such as early Islam, placed a great deal of emphasis on accurate observations and experiments, but generally paid little attention towards the development of scientific theories. It was the major achievement of the Western scientific revolution begun by such as men as Galileo and Newton, that both of these methods were combined together.--That is, where bold, creative conjecture or opinions were combined with a thorough, rigorous round of testing to prove OR disprove the theory. (J.W. Grove's "The Intellectual Revolt Against Science", the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol 13, No. 1/ Fall 1988, p 75) The mystic, like the scientist, may also honestly seek to explore truth, by tapping into his/her feelings and emotions. However, because this is essentially a PERSONAL, individualistic approach to knowledge and understanding--typically (if history is used as a guide) this will only lead to a large, diverse number of interpretations--none of which can be OBJECTIVELY proven to be correct. Unlike the mystic, the scientist assumes that there is only ONE reality-- because it is only in the "here and now" that experience can be measured identically by everyone. Indeed, if everyone could merely "do their own thing", then all objectivity is lost. There is a lot of disagreement and conflict in science regarding the INTERPRETATION of data, but there is much consensus on the objective methods--observation, measurement, mathematics, etc--used by scientists in obtaining and analyzing data. Thus, although science is also speculative and conjectural--if soundly based on empirical evidence and tested for Popper's falsibility test (ie where the theory is tested for ALL the facts, including those designed to uncover WEAKNESSES!) then, over time, this should lead us towards new and improved theories. Although science has never been--nor probably EVER will be perfect--its true goal should be to gradually refine its discipline towards better and better theories. As Karl Popper explained: "although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it. We have learnt in the past, from many disappointments, that we must not expect finality. And we have learnt not to be disappointed any longer if our scientific theories are overthrown; for we can, in most cases, determine with great confidence which of any two theories is the better one. We can therefore know that we are making progress; and it is this knowledge that to most of us atones for the loss of the illusion of finality and certainty." (Karl Popper, "Two Kinds of Definitions" (1945), POPPER SELECTIONS, edited by David Miller, (Princeton University Press, 1985, p 90) For example, the Ptolemy system (which held the EARTH to be at the CENTER of the universe) was replaced by the Copernican theory (which held that the SUN was at the CENTER of the universe.) We know today, that BOTH theories were false (ie our sun is one of many stars in the Milky Way galaxy)-- However the Copernican theory was the BETTER theory of the two, because it served to point science in a direction CLOSER to the truth. (That is, instead of the earth being a stationary center of the universe, the Copernican theory correctly established the earth to be in motion and to revolve around the sun.) Another famous example, is when Albert Einstein's theory of relativity replaced Isaac Newton's laws of mechanics. True, from Einstein's point of view, Newton's equations were an EXCELLENT approximation for his more generalized equations (and indeed Newton's equations are still used by NASA scientists for sending rockets into space!) Still, Einstein's theories are more accurate when applied to large velocities approaching the speed of light, and therefore represents a REFINEMENT over Newton's equations. Einstein believed that science could be typified as a progression towards refining old theories--as opposed to erecting new ones: "Creating a new theory is not like destroying an old barn and erecting a skyscraper in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting point and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out still exists and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on our adventurous way up." (J.H. Weaver, THE WORLD OF PHYSICS, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987, v.ii, p. 133.) Einstein believed that his theory of relativity was NOT the FINAL reality of how matter and energy operated in the universe. Instead, he believed it to be an approximation of some yet undiscovered theory--a unified field theory, which he unsuccessfully spent the rest of his life working on. Technology is probably the best area where it can be demonstrated that science generally represents a PROGRESSION of information and knowledge. Take the field of computers for example. Although revolutions in technologies take place, typically this takes the form of an ADDITION to knowledge (for example, a better computer is built), as opposed to a repudiation of what was formerly known. Exceptions of course, do exist! When the plate theory of the earth was proposed to explain the facts of continental drift and earthquakes, this was a replacement of a theory that the earth was relatively stable. One of the reasons why continental drift was not generally accepted in the scientific community, was that "no one had devised a physical mechanism that would permit continents to plow through an apparently solid oceanic floor..." Until scientists came up with a mechanism for this, they dismissed the data for its occurrence as merely a "series of unconnected coincidences.") (quotes from Steven J. Gould on his early reaction to Wegener's theory of Continental Drift.) As Sir Peter Medawar once said on the subject, "the business of science consists in trying to find out if the imagined world [of the scientist] is anything like the real one. If it is not, then we have to think again." Is Science ALWAYS Objective--Can Scientists be as DOGMATIC As Religious Individuals? Answer--YES! (Although Arguably This May Mean They are NOT Engaged in "True" Science.) Most people will agree that religion (at least, religions OTHER than their own) can be dogmatic. It should therefore come as no surprise that scientists can also be dogmatic. Science is conducted by individuals. Therefore human biases DO enter into scientific investigation and their analyses. For science, with all its delicate instrumentation has not uncovered all the truths within the universe, nor is it ever likely to! This means that conjecture and theories will always exist to fill in the gaps. Even when some scientific evidence goes their theories, some scientists are so biased that they virtually ignore this. T.H. Huxley liked to portray the "true" scientist as an individual who had such an open mind, that s/he would throw out even their best hypotheses-- if the facts were clearly against them. The fact is though, that all too often, scientists will cling onto their own pet ideas and defend them to the end--Result: The human ego is alive and well--even in science. Some critics have (rightfully so in this author's opinion) accused some scientists of even engaging in "scientific" fundamentalism. "Scientific" Fundamentalism--the Example of Broca's Brain The worst abuses in science, of course, occur when a scientist seeks to proclaim a pre-existing belief/ideology as nevertheless--"scientific". Nowhere has this attitude of "scientific" dogmatism been more prevalent, than in the medical profession. For example, during the mid nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was all too common for a medical procedure to be based on an imminent physician's experience and expertise--only later to be demonstrated that this was totally wrong (even quackery). Typically what happened was the individual interpreted all possible favorable evidence as "proof" of his theory, while IGNORING virtually any evidence that would refute his theory. If the ideological factor was especially strong, the individual might even subconsciously DISTORT his own data, apparently without either noticing it, or else by justifying this in his own mind as "necessary". Steven Jay Gould presented an excellent example of this, in his study of Paul Broca. Broca (1824-1880) was a professor of clinical surgery at the French faculty of medicine. Broca believed that the size and weight of human brains, was indicative of the "intelligence" of the individual. Per Broca: "In general, the brain is larger in mature adults than in the elderly, in men than in women, in eminent men than in men of mediocre talent, in superior races than in inferior races (1861, p 304)...Other things equal, there is a remarkable relationship between the development of intelligence and the volume of the brain." (as quoted by Stephen Jay Gould, THE MISMEASURE OF MAN W Norton & Co., 1981). That is, Broca set out to prove that middle-upper class white males had larger brain sizes (and therefore superior intelligence) over blacks, women, and poor whites. Stephen Jay Gould, summed up Broca's method as follows: "It did not occur to him [Broca] that human variation might be ramified and random, rather than linear and hierarchical [ie hierarchical with white males as the superior creatures on top of the creation scale]. And since he knew the order beforehand, anthropometry became a search for characters that would display the correct ranking, not a numerical exercise in raw empiricism." (Ibid, p 86) Broca realized that the larger the body size, the larger the brain mass. For example, elephants and whales have brains that are larger and heavier than humans, yet humans are considered more intelligent. Likewise, age and other factors--such as swelling at the time of death could cause brains to weigh more than natural. Broca believed he had properly factored these considerations in his computations (ie that he was not biased.) Broca began by measuring brain sizes among the human races. Whites' brains measured higher than blacks--but surprisingly Orientals and Eskimos measured higher brain sizes than whites. Broca concluded that brain size worked at the lower end of the scale (ie proving whites were superior to blacks), but did NOT accurately predict superior intelligence at the upper end of the scale (meaning Orientals and Eskimos were NOT superior to whites.) (Ibid, p 87) Broca had to sidestep a large number of problems that would otherwise refute his theory. For example, famous and intelligent (white) individuals sometimes measured BELOW AVERAGE cranial sizes. In some cases where individuals were known to be extremely intelligent--even when Broca adjusted for age and weight, he could only statistically bring the calculations up to "average". Broca tried to argue that possibly these seemingly intelligent individuals were not really so remarkable. (Ibid). Broca also had to contend with the fact that some known criminals measured unusually large cranium sizes. Even after adjusting for any swellings, size etc, Broca could not account for this--although he never admitted as such. Stephen Jay Gould found that Broca sometimes adjusted for size and age wherever it AGREED with his theory, but ignored it when it would appear to refute his theory. (For example Broca adjusted his sample due to the individual's height in order to prove that Germans were NOT innately more intelligent than the French-- but ignored any adjustment factor for size to allow for the smaller weights of women's brains.) Today, Broca's theories are completely discredited . One early American anthropologist, Franz Boas, disproved Broca's theory, by pointing out that brain sizes varied widely among adults of the same group. Boas also showed that brain weights varied within the same individual during his or her lifetime. (Boas, 1899). Most reputable scientists today recognize that efforts such as Broca's are driven by IDEOLOGY--and not science (not unlike with the Nazis under Hitler). Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Most people probably think ideology in medicene is a thing of the past; they imagine when visiting their family doctor, that they are getting medical advice based on the latest scientific research. But this is not always true! According to a recent article in the journal Patient Care, "Some experts estimate that only 20 percent of medical practices are based on rigorous research evidence." (The Year in Ideas 2001, "Evidence-Based Medicine", NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, December 9, 2001, p 68.) The rest is based on a kind of folklore--what doctors have always said or written "should" work. A new revolution is taking place called evidence-based medicine, or E.B.M. whereby traditional treatments are being run through strict control studies, and been found lacking. One example: Patients with lower back pain were traditionally prescribed bed rest. However, E.B.M. studies using science instead of oral tradition found that bed rest actually delayed recovery. As a result, doctors now recommend light exercise and staying on one's feet. The new standards will probably save billions of dollars in unnecessary sick time leave from employers. Why Does Science Progress so Slowly? Because science must rely on models, these (while helpful) may still be relatively simplistic and primitive when compared to the real live subject under scrutiny. For example, a major paradigm shift occurred when the body began to be perceived in terms of a machine. This model worked well in explaining certain bodily functions--such as comparing the heart with a pump. However, this model did not explain other bodily functions--which rely for example on biochemical and electrical systems. (Other, more complex models are needed for these.) Often multiple scientific disciplines had to be discovered in order to have the technology to test theories in such complex areas as evolutionary sciences. It is important for a scientist to respect what s/he does NOT know--and to keep an open mind towards new and improved theories/models. Unfortunately there is so much fraud and superstition, many scientists will counter-argue that they simply cannot waste a lot of time to thoroughly investigate ALL claims of novel discoveries in nature or the supernatural. Still, the evidence will show that (at least some) scientists can be very biased. Max Planck was once asked why science progressed so slowly. He famous reply was: "Because scientists live so long!" Michael Ruse agreed with Planck, elaborating further: "Often the older scientists of the discipline are unable to make the switch [to a revised theory]; they feel strong hostility to the new paradigm and its supporters; and matters are only resolved as the old-timers die off." Typically younger scientists start off with relatively few biases. However like everyone else, they frequently become set in their "old" ways and resist change-- even when the evidence is clearly against them. Fortunately, after they die, their biases die with them, and a new generation of scientists (assuming there is an environment of freedom and inquiry) can review their proofs more objectively, and test them. Some scientific theories naturally lend themselves for testing. For example, if some one declared they had discovered an "improved" technology--say in telephone communication--then it would be a matter of building a model and measuring the results, to demonstrate whether his/her theory was really true or false. However, not all scientific theories can be tested with known technology to measure their results. It is here, where human "biases" and preconceptions can so easily creep in. Popper's "Falsification" Test for Scientific Theories Recently, there has been more emphasis on controlled testing of theories to attempt to remove human biases from the outcome. The new trend is to look at evidence which will FALSIFY the scientific theory--as opposed to only looking at evidence, which will SUPPORT it. The FALSIBILITY test of the philosopher Sir Karl Popper has been extremely helpful in determining exactly what represents a "true" scientific theory. Before Popper's test was proposed, there was a wide variety of theories ranging from ideologies such as Marxism, to scientific theories such as Freud's sexual theories--which all claimed to be "scientific". Basically, these theories were constructed in such a way--so that no one could objectively DISPROVE them through any measurable "test". The proponents of these theories argued that because no one could DISPROVE their theory, then it HAD to be correct! Karl Popper argued just the opposite. According to Popper, the irrefutability of such theories was not a strength--but instead a WEAKNESS: "A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history...The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their 'clinical observations'...I could not think of any human behavior which would not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact--that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed--which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest arguments in favor of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness. (Popper 1962, p 212) Thus, every genuine test of a scientific theory must be an attempt to falsify it--NOT an attempt to confirm it. Any theory which is IMPOSSIBLE to falsify--is NOT a "scientific" theory--but is instead a belief! Karl Popper wrote in his autobiography of the vast contrast between the method of Einstein (who issued a "clear statement that he would regard his theory as untenable if it should fail certain tests") and "the dogmatic attitude of Marx, Freud, Adler, and even more so that of their followers." (Karl Popper, UNENDED QUEST, London: Fontana/Collins, 1976, p 38. cf. CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS, THE GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE 4th edition, London: Routledge, 1972, pp 34-7) There are a large number of disciplines which have been proclaimed as "scientific" by their adherents. Following Popper's definition, it could be argued that although these "claimed" to have used the scientific method, instead their true classification belongs to that of an ideology, as opposed to science. Examples of ideologies, (in this author's opinion) would include such diverse areas as -- communism, Christian science, creationism--even bizarre economic theories, such as "Reaganomics". It would also include the Nazi Aryan superiority ideologies under Hitler's Germany, which were of course never seriously subjected to any serious criticism that could show them to be false. Unfortunately, science has arrived so relatively new on the historical scene, that scientists have lacked a rigorous definition of what properly constituted a "scientific" theory before philosophies such as Popper's were developed. Thus, even in previous decades, it was all to common for a scientist's or doctor's opinion to be disseminated as "science" before it was thoroughly tested in an attempt to "falsify" it. Is Science Necessarily Antagonistic Towards Religion? Answer: NO The fact is there are a large number of scientists who are RELIGIOUS and who would like nothing better than to reconcile THEIR religious views with their scientific disciplines. Science has typically stayed away from some of the more SPIRITUAL assumptions of religion which no one knows yet how to scientifically measure-- e.g. "Is there a God?", and "Is there Life After Death?" These latter subjects have largely stayed within the realm of philosophy/religion. Instead science has primarily been employed in investigating PHYSICAL phenomenon in the world, which can be measured and therefore tested. It can be argued that whenever science has questioned religious assumptions relating to the PHYSICAL world--such as the existence of witches, and the belief in administering vaccines, medicines, etc-- that religion has bounced back each time by incorporating these "revisions" into their doctrine, MAKING THEIR DOCTRINES STRONGER AND MORE VIABLE IN THE LONG RUN. The problem has been when conservative, fundamentalists groups insist that ANY deviation or change from their religious dogma represents an all out attack on religion itself!