The greatest thing about science is NOT evidence

 

What is the greatest thing about science? Most people including scientists are quite convinced about the answer to this question. The answer is that science is based on “evidence”. I was no exception to this conviction.

It was until I read David Duetsch. He is a physicist and he is regarded as the father of quantum computers. But his work on philosophy of science is what I am talking about here. He says evidence is still important. But the greatest thing about the science are the theories. In fact evidence itself is theory-laden. Duetsch calls them explanations. The word expalanation is of course familiar to us. He gives a definition to it and he says the greatest thing about science is “good explanations”.

Now what is a good explanation. A good explanation is “falsifiable” and “hard to vary”. At the outset, it did sound like some obsure philosophical idea. Then, as I understand it more, I realize how powerful it is and it is in fact “the thing” that can ensure almost everything good about the human future. What is that? How is good explanation different from bad one?

Consider an example.

Let me take a culturally familar one rather than a core scientific one.

There is a bunch of negative things happening for you in work in a day. Your vehicle is out of fuel at an unexpected time, you are assigned the most difficult project by your boss, your computer socket is burnt, your colleague is unhappy with how you talked with her today and so on. At the end of the day, you will want an explanation. When it comes to examples of bad explanations, astrology for example gives all sorts of bad explanations. In this case, it may give the following explanation. “today its chandrashtamam, bad things will happen, be careful to avoid them as much as possible”. This is a bad explanation. Why? it is not falsifiable and it is easy to vary.

If no bad things happen, its because you were intentially careful or even because of help from some of your good karma. If 4 bad things happen, no matter what sort, then its because of chandrashtamam. If 18 bad things happen still its because of chandrashtamam. You see. This explanation is first of all not falsifiable. A falsifiable explantion has clear, testable predictions about what should happen and what should not happen. If it is contradicted by observation, it must be rejected or revised. The astrological theory here does not provide anything like that. It has no faslsifying aspect to it and it is not testabile. For example, if any number of and even any type of bad things happen, astrology tells that it is because of the chandrashtamam. Then, if none happens the theory should be refuted. But here it can not be refuted, since the explanation also says if you are careful you may avoid problems. You see it is maximally flexible to fit any observations. It cannot be refuted. But don’t think that just because its not refutable it is a great explanation.

Good explanations don’t come like that. They propose a specific mechanism that could in principle be tested. Take the example of your colleague is unhappy with how you talked with her today. A good explanation is, if you have less sleep the last night, then you will have less happy harmones in blood and you will be in bad mood and talk in a dislikable manner to your colleague. This is a good explanation. Why? It can be tested directly. If X is true then Y should not be observed. A statistical data collection over a population on short sleep times, happy harmone levels and the mood on the next day is a good test. If there is a week correlation (observation), less sleep but good mood, then the theory can be rejected. If not then the explanation is accepted. Now it is a good explanation since it has falsifiability. The second aspect is the explanation should be hard to vary. It means, no aspect of the theory can be rejected or selectively accepted to retrofit the observation. You may also see how logically the good explanation is made and it is very specific about the testable parameters to refute it, specific sleep time, harmone level and scale of mood. Astrological explanation doesn’t provide any specific testable parameter like that. Computer not working, Boss gives tough work etc are the observations but explanation was never specific about any of these in the first place in astrology. Astrological explanation is easy to vary. Some part of it can be selectively accepted to fit the observation. They were so broadly vague with no logic and hence they lack any solid predictive power. This is why astrology is pseudo-science.

The scientific explanation doesn’t stay vague. The lack of sleep theory doesn’t unnecessarily venture into computer socket failure. The later must have a separate “good explanation”.

The dangereous thing about astrological explanations are that they are dead ends for knowledge creation. For example, a good explanation for the socket failure is that is wet due to poor maintenance of a waterline. The explanation can be tested. If true then the control actions can be taken and future failures can be predicted. If its chandrashtamam why bother maintenance? There is no room to improve the explanations, predict future and plan course of action.

Still astrological bad explanations are in culture strongly. Why? The reasons are a few. After a bad day you look for answers and that is a cultural or emotional need. This need overrides logic and accepts any answer. The answer comes from easily available astrology. Why astrology came? There is desire to find the reason and control future. Human mind wants to find order among chaos, to see patterns in the world. Pattern recognition is what makes us human, this is the thing we do better than any other animal. But it is error prone. Imagine you were living a few thousands of years ago. You do agriculture and the outcome relies on seasons, good rain means good crop output. This was before any digital entertainment to fill your nights, so stars in the sky are the main things to observe for the curious minds or minds desperate to find order in chaos. Stars and planets seem to move in patterns, the seasons also change in patterns. You connect the two, stars and the rains and your crop output. Eventually you connect every little human concern to the postion of stars and planets mistakenly. Astrology evolves. It eveloves differently in different parts of the world. Astrology is just a relic of such times of human history. Although the set of things that those agricultural socities did and the modern humans do in a day or almost completely different, the astrological theories got  explanatory coexistence in the culture due to their irrefutable nature and vagueness to retrofit any observation.

Thus in astrology the pattern that we mistakenly recognize is the positions of stars and planets in the sky and connect them mistakenly to the complex and detailed concerns of one species of mammals on this one planet. If you apply the pattern recognizing ability without also applying the regourous methods of science to weed out the inherent tendency to error, then the very ability will just see patterns where there are no patterns. This is true even among the well educated who overlook how the things they studied in the school came about.

Knowledge is as Deutsch puts it, information with causal power, specifically "good explanations" that can transform physical objects and solve problems which is exactly what is required for a better future. The observation or evidence is available. But the explanations are the fundamental difference between astrology and scientific explanations.  Therefore, it is not the evidence that is the greatest thing about science but it’s the “good explanations” that are falsifiable and hard-to-vary.

One peg of religion

Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Javed Akthar say that “people are good despite their religion and not because of it”. It must be their overall conclusion seeing both good and bad consequences of religious faith. I think there is not enough quantified data to support it. It must be studied.

They claim that religious faith does not impose morality, indicating that the most religious countries are the most violent countries in the present world. Richard and Javed claim that religion makes people commit atrocities who are otherwise good people. True. Religious extremists are possibly good people, otherwise. But in my view religious faith make people act morality more often than not.

Religion has been a great source of morality over at least a few millennia. I recall a personal experience. I had travelled to the famous Tiruppathi temple when I was young and religious. It is in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. I travelled from the state of Tamil Nadu. When crossing the border of the states, police checks vehicles and collect toll. For a commercial taxi service, higher toll was collected than a non-commercial car. I, with my relatives without paying attention, travelled in a non-commercial car, however, it was a commercial service given by the driver whom we didn’t know before. My family was blissfully unaware that the driver is cheating the government. The police inquired with the driver about the nature of the trip, seeking clarification on whether it was a personal outing with family or friends or if it involved a commercial service. It is common practice of car owners with a noncommercial vehicle to offer commercial trips to earn extra income. When police asked, the driver obviously lied saying that it was a personal outing. Then the police took out a photo of the deity of the temple where we were heading to. They asked the driver to swear on the god, showing the photo.  The driver got scared and accepted that it is a commercial trip. Definitely the religious faith forced him to be truthful. This is a typical example of the opposite of what Richard and Javed say. This is an incident where people are good because of religion. There can be numerous examples like this that everyone might have seen in their life. The great charities of religion can not be ignored at all. The conclusion is this. In a world where we have people of wide spectrum of levels of education, IQ, life style, religious intensities of families, growing-up atmospheres, monetary status, etc., it is difficult for everyone to get philosophically as refined as atheists. Atheists who have the ultimate reverence for the truth, can intellectually work out their morality. But, truth doesn’t matter to many people compared to the other things they want in life.  Therefore, it is a good weapon to keep people exercise morality due to fear. Carl Sagan says that the one who is moral only because of fear of god, is actually not a moral person. Just a scared one. However, if morality is the need of the hour, I take it, whichever way it comes. A level of religious faith is good, I call this ‘one peg of religion’. It gets bad when it increases beyond a level, when people start committing atrocities in its name. i.e., more pegs have gone in.

Javed Akthar eloquently puts the reasons for religious extremism. He says that it happens due to three types of people. 1. Ones who think that the belief of their parents must be true because it is believed by his/her parents. 2. Ones who get failed in one/several important aspects of life and wants to vent out the venom and feel great and even holy about it. 3. One who is a pure opportunist who wants to exploit a situation for his/her own benefit. These three categories are not water tight. One may be partly here and there. But these three are the reasons.

There is one more strong reason for religious atrocities, which is said by Yuval Harari. To make people believe in something, let them make a sacrifice. Make a man gift a costly ring to his girl friend. His belief that he loves her will grow in his mind. Make people revere a god with severe rituals like doing long hours of fasting, praying multiple times a day, travelling to far flung places of worship, and so on. One day even if they understand the absurdity of their faith, they would not want to reject it. They sacrificed so much that they will not want to accept that all of it is for a lie. And of course, never forget one more important reason. The comfort given by the religion. The sense that there is a watching entity is such a comforting feeling which people find extremely difficult to leave. Eventually they go to a stage of building an identity for themselves with the religion and raise to the level of committing atrocities. This level of religiosity is definitely bad.

There is an interesting category of people who are well educated, who don’t do atrocities in the name of religion but have intense identification with the religion. They try to defend their faith trying to bring some evidences, say, scientific reasons behind their rituals and even lack of evidence or studies in science in certain regimes of human thought. Javed Akthar says that he finds such acts rather cute 😊. Absolutely.

In a world where true inclusiveness exists, religious people should have their place.  It is only fair to expect that religion and superstition cannot leave the place where education and material well-being doesn’t reach. To all the atheists, rationalists, agnostics etc., who revere truth over everything else, please find the believers rather cute and move on. Keep spreading your knowledge so that 1. they don’t become extreme, 2. they wither off certain stupid customs that causes a net suffering. 3. possibly they understand and open for change. Till then one peg of religion is good.

 

Where does Sam Harris go irrational?

 

Despite being labeled as one of the four horsemen of atheism, Sam Harris stands out by extending his future course of action to individuals whose belief has withered off or never existed. The highly rational individual that he is, Sam Harris explores two areas where ultra-rationalism might find compromise for the better. In the first instance, he meticulously presents arguments to rationalize a practice—meditation. Harris contends that the mindfulness technique he advocates, promoting a life of awareness and reduced suffering, can be likened to mental training, analogous to the physical training undertaken by athletes. Notably, there is a mounting body of scientific evidence supporting the rationality of his stance.

In the second instance, he goes into irrationality, addressing the question of life's meaning, specifically what individuals ought to do with their lives. In fact, that is the biggest problem with science. It does not offer answers to "what one ought to do?", the question answered by religion all along. Harris proposes that determining what one ought to do, both individually and as a human race, becomes possible by accepting a foundational principle. Namely, the shared desire to avoid a state of absolute hell—maximum suffering for everyone, at every moment—and to move towards well-being. While there is no scientific proof mandating this direction, it aligns with rational and common-sense thinking for any reasonable person. Although this sounds reasonable, it is his deeply honest reverence towards the scientific method that makes him admit that it is still an irrational principle since it has no scientific proof. However, if one accepts the premise of steering away from hell and pursuing a better world, there are numerous rational pathways to achieve this goal.

Celebrating a by-product?

 

There is nothing more real to a human being than the consciousness. One may never read a book, listen to any ideas, or learn anything, but even for that person, the real thing is his/her consciousness. How to define it? It is “the subjective experience of our feelings and thoughts” or “simply awareness of our own existing self and presence in the world”¹. Sam Harris gives a beautiful metaphor for the consciousness as “lights on”². 

Where does it come from? Even today it is one of the most fascinating frontiers of science. Undeniably, complex neurological activities correlate to all feelings, emotions, thoughts and actions³. For example, seeing a real predator in the eye creates a cascade of electrochemical changes in the brain and the body to make us run away. The entire process is a mere automated process for an evolutionary advantage: see the animal, run and ensure survival. Then what is the need of the feeling of fear here? Why is that subjective experience is coming while seeing the predator and running? If it is true that the entire process is a mere automated process, then it is almost equivalent to the falling of dominos⁴. What is the need for a subjective experience while dominoes are falling?

Even more complex and even long-term actions are again an elaborate cascade of electrochemical changes in the brain cells. However, a plethora of subjective experiences are also available with them, making the human life so-called ‘rich’ in experiences.

Then what is consciousness? The best explanation available today is that all the subjective experiences are unnecessary. Consciousness is a mere by-product that is unnecessary for the intended purpose of a primary event⁵. It is just like the sound energy created by the engines, while the intended purpose of the engines is to convert heat energy to mechanical energy. But many processes do not create sound such as dissolving sugar in water. In fact, almost 99% of things happening in our body, like regulation of heartbeat, kidney functions and digestion, do not create any subjective experience but only a few processes, like fleeing from a predator, do it.

However, we keep celebrating our feelings, emotions, subjective experiences and ‘conscious’ decisions vis-à-vis our free will as the driver of all our life. The realization that it may be an unnecessary by-product may deprive us of our cherished everything. But it keeps us humble and open-minded.

 

¹Libet, B. (1988). Consciousness: Conscious, Subjective Experience. In: States of Brain and Mind. Readings from the Encyclopedia of Neuroscience . Birkhäuser, Boston

²https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dC_nRYIDZU

³Arciniegas, David B., C. Alan Anderson, and Christopher M. Filley, eds. Behavioral neurology & neuropsychiatry. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

⁴Harari, Yuval Noah. Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. random house, 2016.

⁵Morgado-Bernal, I. (2019). Is Consciousness an Epiphenomenon?. In: Matthews, M.R. (eds) Mario Bunge: A Centenary Festschrift. Springer, Cham.