|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Objectivity in Science
| Article
# : |
13329 |
|
|
Section : |
NATURAL SCIENCE
|
| Issue
Date : |
10 / 1987 |
3,078 Words |
| Author
: |
Donald M. MacKay
Until his death in February, Donald M. MacKay (1922-1987) was
professor emeritus of neuroscience at Keele University in
Staffordshire, England. He founded the Department of
Communication and Neuroscience at Keele in 1960, which has
become a research institute of international standing. |
There is something akin to the religious in the scientific attitude. No Hippocratic oath may be required of entrants to the scientific profession; but among all good scientists there is a powerful sense of commitment to the supra-personal corporate aim of faithfulness in obedience to data. Members of the scientific community rely on one another to serve as trustworthy "testers" of their ideas. High ethical standards are inculcated in nearly all scientific laboratories, and unscrupulous go-getters, however successfully by other criteria, are despised.
Historically, of course, these quasi-religious ingredients are consonant with, and largely inspired by, the Christian origins of Western science, as Hooykass and others have shown. There are dangers, however, in the tendency of some apologists to draw analogies between the "faith" exercised by the scientist and "faith" as used in the context of biblical Christianity. True, the scientist runs a risk every time he takes a finite sequence of events, however closely they follow a predictable pattern, as the inductive justification for enunciating a scientific "law"; for as Hume pointed out long ago, he has no rational proof that the pattern of precedent so codified will apply on all future occasions, or that it has applied at all times in the past. In that sense any induction is a "leap of faith," for the scientist must base all his predictions on trust that precedent will continue to be followed; and the notion that science provides infallible rational criteria for determining what can or cannot happen (e.g. when discussing the possibility of miracle) is a logical error. The most that science can tell us is what is possible or impossible within a given model of reality. Nothing prevents reality, or Reality, from handing us a surprise package that our current model would have entirely excluded. This point deserves emphasis, especially in the face of the perennial misconception that science has ruled out the possibility of miracles such as the resurrection of Christ. The Christian's belief that Christ rose from the dead is not based on some negative reservations about the normal laws of biology, but on the positive conviction, itself arrived at on the basis of evidence, that in the case of Christ's death the pattern of precedent which the normal laws of biology correctly describe was not followed by the Creator of the sequence of events - for special, unique and good reasons.
It is equally important, however, to note that the "faith" shown by the scientist (or the man in the street) when he bases his plans for tomorrow on the regularities of today is a radically different concept from that living personal relationship with God which Christians refer to as "faith" and
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
