When does religion become science?
At sustainability.bastish.net, Kevin (that's me) is confused about whether what he is learning is a religion, or a science. In the strictest sense, it is based on sound science which knows how ecosystems work, and what can destroy them, but in a social sense, it appears more like a religion because the science has not yet been fully accepted by the public.
I am not sure if it is a lack of understanding on my part, or because this is something that can only be understood by a believer.
There are enough "scientists" out there preaching politically motivated values, that doubt is created, despite our best instincts. As a result, instead of basing our views on science, we are freer to base it on our own mental frames and understanding of the world.
At what point does science differ from religion? Is it only when the science is overwhelmingly accepted? So long as *enough* people refuse to accept a truth, it will be always be considered simply a "view" or "belief". I hate to go back to the overused "flat world / round world" argument, but where was the tipping point that believing in a round world cease to be a "belief", and come to be accepted as fact?
Comments
Well, I'm looking at this from a distance, but the Natural Step organisation looks much more like a business consultancy to me than a religious sect. The rhetoric of Saving the World naturally borrows from religous discourse -- but they're not in the business of saving your soul, they're in the business of selling their advice to CEOs. The threat to the integrity of their science, I'd say, comes much more from the imperative to market and sell their advice than from religious dogmatism. The need for certainties is economic rather than spiritual.
That aside, the question of whether it's science or religion seems not very relevant to me. Determine whether it's science or not -- if it isn't, then it doesn't matter so much what it is.
Science as I understand it -- I'm not a scientist, so reader beware -- depends on hypothesis testing. I don't think a true scientist will ever tell you that something is incontrovertably, irrefutably true. A scientist will tell you that a hypothesis is (provisionally) accepted as true because there is no available data that falsifies it.
Hawkins changed his mind recently. I don't pretend to understand what exactly he changed his mind about, but as a scientist he's within his rights to change his mind -- the Pope, by contrast, isn't going to change his mind about the Virgin Birth.
And I don't think Hawkins changed his mind by virtue of being Hawkins. Scientific hypothesis testing doesn't take place in the social vacuum of the lone genius; it's a form of discourse that heavily relies on peer review. As such, it's a conversation about the verification/falsification of hypotheses.
This conversation embraces something that religious discourse tends to shun as the work of the devil: doubt. Peer review doesn't take anything on authority; participants in this conversation are expected to exert their critical faculties; if there are holes that can be punched into a hypothesis, these are holes that should be punched into the hypothesis -- not for the pleasure of the punching, but in the interest of sound science.
So, if you have doubts about the science you study -- voice it! Put it out there on your site! You don't have an obligation to either "preach to the choir," spread the word, or demonstrate flawless, goody-goody discipleship. Doubt may be the enemy of religious belief, it may be bad PR for a business consultancy, but it's one of the mainsprings of critical, scientific inquiry.
Posted by: Spambot | September 16, 2004 01:30 PM
Thanks Rudolf, reading that help clarify some things for me. By comparing it to religion, I am not wondering myself if it is science or religion, but more that in general, I get the feeling that the world views this more as a religion i.e. a matter of ones own personal beliefs, rather than as a science.
That being said, I guess I have to break it up into two parts.
1. Our way of life is unsustainable. This is the science part. This is based on the principles of what makes a sustainable ecosystem. The principles are open to peer review, and an overwhelming concensus has ben reached that these are for real.
2. Because we are violating the principles, there will be backlash from the market. This seems obvious and logical to me, but I guess there is no scientific "proof" for this. This is I think where I doubt not the validity of what the Natural Step is teaching, but how effective we can be to get the message out. This is where I feel that we are preaching to the chior. People who accept it already believe it.
Althought there are many past examples of what happens when we violate the system conditions (Easter Island), I get the feeling that many people "believe" (as in a religious belief, without proof) that by somehow using more, through technology, we will unsustain ourselves right into sustianability, and we will no longer be bound by the "rules" of the eco-system.
What is frustrating about this, is that with religion (at the the religion I know) if you believe you are saved, if you don't you aren't. Unfortunatly, when it comes to sustainability, even though I believe, it does not good unless everyone else believes and acts on that belief as well.
Posted by: kevin | September 16, 2004 03:54 PM
i'm looking for http://steelbuildings.angelcities.com
Posted by: steel buildings | November 2, 2004 06:46 AM