The Author – Bart Busschots
Creative Commons
Unless otherwise stated, the content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivative Works 3.0 License
Nov
9
The Science Delusion
Filed Under Science & Astronomy, Polemics & Politics on November 9, 2006 at 3:05 am
No, I haven’t gone all anti-science or become a creationist, I just needed to grab your attention to highlight a serious issue I have with supposed scientists like Richard Dawkins. This article has been brewing in the back of my mind for months now. For most of its gestation period it went under the working title ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’, but it was missing a focus to build around, Dawkins provided that focus, and the ten year anniversary of the death of Carl Sagan provided the spark to get this out of my brain and onto ‘paper’ as it were.
I consider myself a scientist, I chose to do a science degree, then chose to go back and try for a PhD in science, and took the time to get myself elected a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. As such I have a very personal interest and involvement in science, scientists, and the public perception of science. I’ve shared some of my reflections on the nature of science on this blog before (see links below) but those reflections didn’t really get to what I now realize is at the very core of science, knowing that there is a lot that we don’t know, and a need to be open to the possibility that we’re wrong. Science does not move forward by digging its heals in and refusing to accept changes in our understanding of the universe, and science is most certainly not served by speaking in absolutes and making unsupported and indeed unsupportable statements in the name of science.
[tags]Science, Creationism, Dawkins, God[/tags]
To me one of the central issues can be summed up with a very simple statement that gets hammered into every undergraduate archeologist:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Whenever you hear scientists categorically state that something does not exist because we have no evidence for it, alarm bells should start ringing immediately. The first spark for this post was ignited when I was listening to a science podcast a few months back and heard a supposed scientist categorically state that there is no such thing as telepathy because there is no evidence for it. As a scientist you cannot do that. You have to remove yourself and your emotions from the topic and look only at the evidence to make logical deductions and assertions. It is completely scientific to say that despite numerous attempts to find evidence of telepathy none has been found, it is not acceptable to state that it does not exist because of this lack of evidence. It is even acceptable for scientists to express personal opinions based on scientific research provided it is clear that they are expressions of opinion and not fact. You can say that no one has been able to find evidence of telepathy despite numerous attempts and that you believe this to be because telepathy does not exist. But you cannot say that science proves that telepathy, or ghosts, or telekinesis, or a sixth sense, or indeed, God, does not exist.
When scientists make these kinds of unsupportable statements about something like telepathy they sometimes cause a little controversy, but not much, and they don’t really damage science in the eyes of the average person on the street, but if you add God into the mix things heat up very quickly! I’ve always said that anyone who looks for scientific truths in religious texts is deluded. But it works the other way around too. I also consider anyone who tries to get religious truth out of science to be deluded. The Bible cannot prove that the world is flat, nor that the Earth was made six thousand years ago, but equally, science cannot disprove the existence of God. Sure, science can influence your personal faith, but you cannot use science to make absolute pronouncements about the existence or nature of God. I personally find that science feeds into my spirituality as it gives me a great sense of wonder about the universe around me and makes me ask myself ‘why’, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about people using science to attempt to justify making absolute pronouncements about the nature, or indeed existence, of God.
Of all the people who attempt to (ab)use science in this way, Dawkins stands out above all others. He does not believe in God, that’s his prerogative. He is also perfectly correct in stating that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a God because there isn’t. However, he goes much further than that, he states that science shows that God is a delusion, and that’s the point where he crosses the line from science to faith. Dawkins’ statement that God is a delusion is fundamentally no different to intelligent design. Neither is scientific, both are logically flawed, and both do as much harm to science as the other. Intelligent design is a delusion rooted in a refusal to accept that the existence of God cannot be proven, and Dawkins’ scientific disproof of God is a delusion based on a miss-understanding of science, or a science delusion if you will. It is a logical fallacy to use absence of evidence as evidence of absence!
When we are thought science in school we think of it in terms of laws and equations and facts, which sets us up to think of science as static and rigid and set in stone. It also gets us comfortable with the idea that science can speak in absolutes, and that’s at the very core of this problem. Science is a current best-guess at how the universe works. It’s a best guess that has to be firmly rooted in observation and experimentation, but a best-guess none the less. Science cannot prove anything, only lend support to ideas and disprove others. Science does no know everything, it is not categorically right, and hence it has to constantly be open to change. It is not about absolutes and once you start speaking in absolutes you make science rigid and inflexible and effectively slam on the brakes. In my mind a science education should start by driving this home to students, not by making them memorize laws and equations without appreciating how they were arrived at and the weight of evidence that under-lies these current best-guesses.
There is one obvious danger when trying to get across this best-guess idea and that is what I call the It’s only a theory syndrome. Yes, evolution is only our current best-guess but there is an absolute wealth of evidence supporting it and in order for any other theory to supersede evolution as our best-guess it will have to have at least as much support and be at least as good at explaining the world we observe around us. Although it is exceptionally un-likely that our current understanding of evolution will prove to be completely right the fact that it does so well at explaining the universe makes it a very compelling theory and implies strongly that there is truth in it. Newton’s laws have been shown not to be the whole truth, but that does not take away from the fact that they do give us a very good approximation of how the universe works at the scales we experience in our every-day lives. There is truth in them, but they are not the whole truth.
I’ll end by calling on all scientists reading this to stand up and correct anyone who speaks in absolutes in the name of science, or who does not understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I’d also call on those who teach science to try to impart an understanding and a love of science and the scientific philosophy and method to their students, as well as teaching them the details of our current best-guess at how the universe works.
Good points, I never really had a particular problem with Dawkins until recently. Up til then he was just an annoying evangelical atheist, no different to an annoying evangelical believer. On the Daily Show I kinda got the impression he was something more than that, he was an outright idiot .
Unfortunately the video you link to has been removed. I would have liked to see that interview. I realized he was not just another evangelical atheist when he was on the radio one morning a few months back and I found myself shouting at my radio to try correct the idiot!
A sticky one, this!
Personally, it seems religion has enough detractors and contributors without the likes of a self-promoting individual like Dawkins knocking it. From Byron’s “Necessity for Atheism” (his title!) to many medieval evangelists wondering how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, I think the waters were muddied long before Dawkins decided to chuck in his two cents.
IMHO, ignore the troll, and he’ll go away! That said, I do understand why it bugs you 😉
But as the old Latin saying goes, “Nil Illigitimi Carborundum”…
test test test
Good post.
Seems to have worked that time Dave … your post from this morning got picked up as spam by Akismit …. apparently writing just “good post” looks like spam …. that’s the first false-positive for Akismit in over 1,000 comments … guess nothing is perfect!
Bart.
Good post.
Hmm, strange one alright, though I suppose most spam does tend to have “good post” or “interesting post” or something in it.
Good post, yeah Dawkins views on the Bible are actually so ridiculous its kind of entertaining to listen to. I mean he attempts the job of a theological scholar and tries to tear the Bible apart and fails miserably.
Iditos are a fact of life. They are a fact of life and like dead bodies lying in the corridor you just have to hold your nose and step over them.
Interesting post, however having just read “The God Delusion” myself I am quite surprised at your reaction and interpretation of Dawkins’ views and arguments. Dawkins states from the start that he does not know for definite that a God doesn’t exist, but he is almost certain. He doesn’t even put himself in the highest category on his atheist scale. He admits we cannot state categorically wheter or not a God exists. He doesn’t use absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Quite the opposite really.
He starts from the view that there is no good reason for a God to exist – its only a human construct after all. He then goes on to explain scientifically why our species and society has evolved in such a way that has allowed a belief system of this sort to develop – basically an unfortunate by product of a number of the necessities for our survival.
He also explains how any arguments for a Gods existence do not actually answer any of the questions of our origins. It just adds an extra layer of complexity and one more thing to be explained – it turns into a recursive argument without a base case.
I have to say I thought his approach and arguments were very scientific and he is certainly extremely good at explaining his arguments. He also makes it quite clear that science is only the current view on the world and theories are often scrapped or refined. Although, it would be interesting to hear from him when Darwinism is superseded by the next theory.
The only gripe I have with Dawkins is his elitist attitude – although it does make for entertaining reading at times, like his attitudes to theology – “how is that even a subject?”!
I definitely agree with you however on your views on the teaching and interpreting of science. Scientists should be thought to think and question everything – memorizing laws and formulae is for engineers.
Hi Fergal,
I’ll admint I’ve only read bits of The God Delusion, I did however recently (within the last few months) hear him in a radio dabate on Irish radio and he make a very poor account of himself. The Dawkins I heard on the radio sounded nothing like the Dawkins you describe. Perhaps the only side of Dawkins that was on show that day was his elitism, I was certainly left in no doubt that he considered himself to be superior to everyone else in the discussion. If find that kind of condescension very infuriating so it has probably clouded my view of the man.
I guess I’ll have to make the time to read all of the God Delusion and then revise my opinions.
I agree, I have heard him interviewed and in debates before and he does come across as a right twat and extremely arogant. However I have read a number of his books and find him to be a excellent writer with quite a tallent for explaining his pet subject. I also saw his tv program last year on religion with the unfortunate title (Root of all evil) and found him refreshingly scientific in his approach and thus exposed some of the real problems that we tend to overlook when we dont think scientifically.
It seems that because we have each been introduced to him through his two different personas we interpret his views very differently – interesting but unfortunate!
Definitely interesting. I’ve decided that I am going to give him another chance and I’m going to read the God Delusion but I still have real problems squaring the circle here. The titles of his books are a direct offense to science IMO. The title ‘the God Delusion’ does not match with your description of the views he expresses in it and the title ‘Root of all Evil’ makes an unsupportable and unscientific claim that the program it self did not actually make. But a title is a very important part of a book or a program, it says a lot about the author so we see him contradict himself right off the bat. He’s his own worst enemy!
Definitely not a simple man!
The title ‘The root of all evil?’ (with a question mark) was not Dawkins’s idea. In fact he opposed the use of this title. Channel 4 insisted on the title and the only comprimise they would agree to is to add the question mark.
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
We all know that’s the case as does Dawkins. When Dawkins is speaking as an atheist he uses a combination of science and philosophy/logic to form his arguments. He’s never said that science can prove there is no god. In fact in every interview i’ve seen him in he’s said the opposite. But he then backs it up and says that we also can’t disprove pink unicorns, lepricauns or the flying spaghetti monster. The point is that even though we can’t disprove the existence of a supernatural deity, we also have no reason to believe a supernatural deity exists. He also says you can be technically agnostic about these things but in practice we’re atheists.
As for the language he’s using, you have to consider his audience. The god delusion is not a science text. Knowing how the religious world invokes equivocation and other fallacies to use words like ‘theory’ out of context and knowing the layperson’s understanding of such terms, it’s important in a book such as this to speak in the language of a layperson.
Furthermore, while I accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, i’m also a firm believer that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proofs. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
>I’ll admint I’ve only read bits of The God Delusion, I did however recently (within the last few months) hear him in a radio dabate on Irish radio and he make a very poor account of himself.
You based your arguments on a single radio interview? Surely you’re aware of the time constraints and how difficult it is to get your point across in a short time when your opinion might be based on a set of complex reasoning.
Go to http://www.RichardDawkins.net you will see copious reviews of his book (good and bad) and every radio and television interview he’s done recently (including Turbidy).
I heard the Turbidy interview and there was nothing but fallacious argument and anger coming from the other guy who did everything he could to keep Dawkins from getting a word in edgewise. The guy was convinced god exists because matter exists. Can’t remember the other guy’s name but he was from the Irish Times I think.
Jim, this was not supposed to be a post about Dawkins, it was supposed to be an article on the importance of not taking evidence of absence as absence of evidence. I just chose to use Dawkins as a hook because I’d recently heard him and he came across so badly. I wish I’d picked a better example because the side-show seems to have rather over-shadowed the big top here.
Dawkins came across very badly in that interview so he got used as an example. It would appear that the Dawkins in that interview was not the best Dawkins out there. I’ve already said that I’m going to give the guy another chance via another medium (the written word) and I will before commenting further on his theories and ideas.
OK. I’d recommond the Selfish Gene over the God Delusion (which is more aimed towards an american layman audience). Also you can watch the root of all evil on google video and youtube. There are two parts. There is also an older documentary available called ‘the blind watchmaker’ (which was also the title of one of his books).
Not to mention all of his interviews and reviews on http://www.ricahrddawkins.net
enjoy!
I enjoyed your piece and will remember the wise quote “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. However, I do feel this should be used with realism or we may all still believing in trolls, fairies and pink elephants. Having an open mind is a blessing but not to the extent that our brains fall out.
I have read “The God Delusion” and agree with Fergal Walsh’s post on November 10th, 2006 12:22 am. Richard Dawkins does say that he wishes not to offend religous people and hope that they will continue to read the book. He writes with passion about his thoughts that may offend or some may infer his view is absolute but this is not the case.
I don’t believe he did step over the mark. I do believe that it is time that religion makes it case as science is continually doing not not rely on belief.
Thanks for your comments Paul. I guess my reply would be that not believing in something because there is no evidence is not the issue. It is believing it does not exist because there is no evidence. There is no reason to believe in pink elephants, but there is also no basis for categorically stating that they do not exist. I’ll grant you that it’s a very subtle difference, but in my opinion it’s a very important one.
I don’t believe in the Christian God, or indeed the God(s) from any organised religion, but I cannot say that science proves they don’t exist because it doesn’t. To say it does is to misrepresent science and to take a leap of faith of sorts.
Hello,
I came across your Blog accidentally, and noticed your statement that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. That is odd to me: I always thought the platitude was “absence of proof is not proof of absence”. This latter formulation is of course correct, but I think your formulation is misleading. Absence of evidence can certainly be taken as evidence of absence – just not indefeasible evidence (or ‘proof’), of course. Just a quibble, and I’m sure everyone has moved on to other topics anyway…
Hi Mike,
Subtlety is very important. You are indeed right. Within a scientific context your formulation is more correct than mine. I was introduced to the term within an archaeological context where it was used as I stated it above. Perhaps the line between evidence and proof lies slightly differently within archaeology. That is I was listening to the wrong archaeologist 🙂
Bart.
Hey – very good post. I actually considered writing exactly this post last night. I even would have written some of the sentences like you did. Amazing. One thing I would add to the argument about the differences between science and faith is, I actually think the two are mutually exclusive. If something can be proven scientifically there is no need to “believe” in it, since it has been proven. On the other hand the whole point of faith is to BELIEVE and to believe a proof is not required.
-Stefan, NZ
This blog entry adds to a whole range of straw man arguments written by journalists and bloggers who clearly haven’t read the book.
“Whenever you hear scientists categorically state that something does not exist because we have no evidence for it”
Dawkins did not do that. Dawkins argument is that without evidence you have no reason to think it exists. He says you have to accept the possibility because you can’t disprove it and then adds that, in the absence of evidence, we have the same reason to think that god exists as we do the tooth fairy. We cannot disprove the existence of the tooth fairy.
That is not the same as claiming categorically taht god does not exist because there is no evidence.
In the comments you have stated that the article is not about dawkins but scientists in general… but the article says this…
“Of all the people who attempt to (ab)use science in this way, Dawkins stands out above all others.”
so sorry, I don’t accept that. You’ve specifically, and incorrectly, accused Dawkins of commiting the fallacy you are referring to generally.
I suspect, that like many others, you have based much of your opinion on what others have said about Dawkins. This kind of article pops up all too often. I’ve even found specific examples of people critisising Dawkins for not considering certain things that are very well covered in the book.
I’m afraid you’re no better than Prof. William Reville with his army of straw man arguments published in the Irish Times.
I’m sorry, but I didn’t get too far down this article.
I go to the bit about “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” then just read a few comments. Jimbo mentions the toothy-fairy not having any evidence to support it, but I like Pastafarianism.
There is no evidence to support the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png
Hi Timmy,
Since you couldn’t be bothered reading what I had to say I was tempted to just trash your comment, but I guess I’m in a good mood or something.
Anyway, the Toothfairy argument as a canard. There is no mystery about the Toothfairy, we have a perfect rational explanation with masses of direct empirical evidence as to just how the teeth get removed and replaced with money. We can’t of course absolutely guarantee there is no toothfairy, but the preponderance of evidence is very clear, so we can say with a high degree of certainty that it’s very unlikely that a toothfairy exists. Same deal for Santa.
There is simply no such thing as proving a negative. It’s basic logic. You can choose to put your faith in Occam’s Razor, and believe that very unlikely things are simply not so, but you can’t speak in absolutes and remain scientific.
P.S.
If you do chose to reply further, please do actually read my post, it would be quite rude to go on arguing without doing so.
“Whenever you hear scientists categorically state that something does not exist because we have no evidence for it, alarm bells should start ringing immediately.”
Dawkins does not categorically(being without exception or qualification; absolute) state that God does not exist. Dawkins uses the word “probably”. So your assertion about Dawkins is untrue, a straw man.By the way You might just READ Dawkins book before you start ranting, as it will ensure that you don’t make yourself look like an ass.
Hi Bart-a refreshingly thought provoking article.I guess the media need people like “Dorkers” to stimulate a level of controversy which raises turnover.Leaving Richard and his alleged/disputed dogma aside,far more insidious ,to me,is the “baby without the bathwater” mentality espoused by the scientific community.It is no more rational to present a distortion (that science has only a positive effect on mankind and the planet) than it is to defend an unproveable religious premise. Rationalism is ,surely, concerned with factoring-in All the variables,no matter how unpalatable?