Guest Post—Collision of Science and Belief

Emma is one of my regular guest bloggers. I feel really thrilled about the possibility to post one educating post of this great blogger once a month over the next couple of months. Thank you so much, Emma, for sharing these great posts with us! If you would like to check out the previous guest posts, this amazing blogger wrote for me, head over here.

Ib8f468548840f7f9fa3f81df253ef2a0 remember something my 9th grade advanced biology teacher told our class.

See, back between 8th and 9th grade, there seemed to be a lot of controversy in schools surrounding science and religion.

Teachers of that age range felt the need to preempt their entire class with a disclaimer—that students were still free to believe whatever they believed, no matter the content of the class.

And the debate never let up. Even in 11th grade, we did an activity that included a debate over prayer in schools.

(This is all taking place in the US, mind.)

I remember speaking quite vocally about not encouraging prayer in schools any more than is already being done. I remember stating that school is for learning, and whatever students did at home was their own business. But school wasn’t church.

Well, I won’t pretend I even know all that much about religion. I wasn’t exactly raised in a religious household. But ever since that day in 9th grade, there’s a certain story I’ve carried with me.

It goes like this:

A man tells his neighbor that he has a dragon in his garage.

The neighbor asks to see it.

The man responds that he can’t. The dragon is invisible.

The neighbor replies that he will splash paint in the air, and if it lands on the dragon, then he will know that it’s there.

The man replies that, unfortunately, the dragon has a special coating on his scales that makes paint slip right off. It won’t stick or even land.

The neighbor suggests several other ways to test for the dragon’s presence—ways that, in science, would be known as indicators. Indicators show that something exists or that a process is happening, even if the thing or process is invisible.

Indicators, for instance, are scientists’ main ways of observing theoretical phenomena—such as black holes.

black-hole-jet-caltech

Well, it turns out, the man claims that all of the neighbor’s indicators wouldn’t work with the dragon. It’s special, and it can deflect all of these attempts to reveal its location.

I ask you, then, does the dragon exist?

We don’t know.

We can’t know.

There is no way to prove that the dragon exists, because no indicators will work. But isn’t there a possibility that the dragon exists? Yes, because as has been said so many times in science, it’s impossible to prove a negative.

That’s the difference between religion and science. The man believes he has a dragon in his garage. The neighbor cannot prove it. Scientifically, the dragon’s existence cannot be proven, but it can be believed.

And this difference—this very, very simple difference—is ignored so often that I begin to wonder if there’s hope for trust in science.

The difference between belief and proof is the main hindrance in the global warming debate, though it shouldn’t be. I’ll share with you a quote my dad found a few years ago:

“Once they have found evidence that supports their theory, no amount of counter-evidence will change their minds. They know that any information that contradicts their theory must be false.”

In other words, what if the neighbor threw paint in the air, and it landed on something?

“But that can’t be,” says the man. “My dragon resists paint. It must be an invisible tiger!”

The neighbor throws more paint on the dragon, until the dragon’s shape is clearly outlined.

Still, the man shakes his head in disbelief. “It must be a different dragon.”

The man probably threw paint in the air somewhere in the garage, and it didn’t happen to land on the dragon. He was convinced that it can’t land on the dragon. Later, when the neighbor proves this hypothesis false, the man refuses to believe the evidence.

This is what occurs in the global warming debate. Global warming deniers tend to latch on to one piece of evidence that, in their minds, “proves” all scientific theories wrong.

In science, just one piece of evidence against a theory is enough to call that theory into question. But then all evidence is examined and reexamined. One contrary bit of evidence can’t undermine a whole theory in one fell swoop.

Would you be surprised, then, to hear that the above quote actually originated from a global warming denier?

Here’s what happens:

Scientists prove time and time again that global warming is indeed happening, and is a threat. Deniers then incorrectly interpret pieces of this evidence in a desperate attempt to prove the scientists wrong.

When deniers point out the “holes” in global warming theories, which are always simply misinterpretations of overwhelming evidence suggesting that global warming is a real threat, scientists dismiss these false interpretations.

They are completely right to do so.

Deniers, though…they then complain that scientists dismiss any evidence that contradicts their theory. Of course, this evidence must be false.

climate_change_skeptic

Incorrect! Scientists examine every bit of evidence that might contradict global warming. Do you think they want their world to warm up, climate systems to change, and the Antarctic ice sheet to melt, among other consequences?

No. Scientists would rejoice the day global warming was definitively proven, in the words of one denier teacher of mine, “untrue.”

However…the evidence just keeps compounding.

Just as you can believe there is an invisible dragon your garage, you can believe that global warming isn’t happening. But, just as you cannot prove there is an invisible dragon in your garage, you can’t prove that global warming isn’t happening.

Because it is.

I’m not saying that denial surrounding global warming is a form of religion. I’m not even saying it operates in the same way—because global warming denial is a refusal to accept the facts, and religion is simply harmless belief.

I’m saying that science and belief are two completely separate things.

Sometimes people ask me if I believe in aliens, in global warming, in conspiracy theories, in the NASA moon launch, in anything…

I always tell these people the same thing. I believe in none of those things. I pay attention to the evidence concerning all of them. If, on the far-off chance that someone one day proves that NASA employees are all liars, well…I will happily accept that truth.

But I don’t believe that will ever happen. 😉

If someone proves that aliens exist, then I’ll accept that aliens exist. Until then, I don’t believe that they exist or that they don’t exist. I simply don’t know.

obama-meets-alien-png

Although…I really doubt Barack Obama does, either.

In future posts, I’ll address everything from the truth of climate science to the obscure-but-somewhat-famous Messier Objects. I’m a nut for all things science, so you can expect the repository of random scientific insights to be never-ending!

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Guest Post—Collision of Science and Belief

  1. You’ve touched on a subject dear to my heart here. I set out some years ago to try and convince myself either way of the truth behind GW. The facts as I found them are far from easy to draw conclusions to. I say facts as everyone has some kind of version of their own truth.

    The facts rae that Earth is warming up. The problem is, that apart from a rather ropy correlation between CO2 emissions and warming temperatures most of the science from GW comes from computer models not facts presented. They have a lot of data on the fact that Earth is warming but that can’t tie it to CO2.

    On top of this, when the IPCC decided to deliberately eliminate all evidence of the medieval warm period that then stunk of personal agenda. The fact is a lot of scientist are paid by grants to learn about and monitor GW. The whole GW thing apparently start when in the 1980’s Margaret Thatcher wanted to do away with the coal miner and go nuclear. To do this she picked up on GW and told them to ‘prove it exists’

    This is just a small part of what I found, but you have deniers who swing to the the other side and vice versa. I found this most frustrating as the reality is for me. There are few facts on this. But on a personal note, to change our lives and stop wasting Earth’s resources is where we should be going. But the world isn’t interested in this. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Simon,
      Global warming is happening, is a danger, and is very much provable (and proven). However, I understand how frustrating attempts to understand the science can be. I barely understand it myself and I’ve been writing science blog posts for years. That’s why, as I do my own research, I’ve decided to write some explanatory posts here on the Momma’s blog and on my own. You are more than welcome to take a look at them as they come out. They’re every other Thursday on my blog. Here, I write a guest post once a month, and sometimes it may touch on global warming.
      Thank you for being willing to consider the facts, such as that are, and do research. There are so many people—the deniers—who just choose to believe what they believe, regardless of the scientifically proven reality. You are exactly the sort of audience I want to reach with my posts. Thank you for your comment—you’ve restored a bit of my faith in humanity.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Emma, I agree, global warming is happening and the reasons behind it need to be known in order to properly understand what it is we’re doing. We need to stop burning stuff, regardless of whether or not it causes global warming. I take issue with some of the high up scientists and some of the drivvel they pump out. For example one of them said that variations in solar activity could not account for significant temperature variations on Earth. I fail to see how any ethical scientist can state this and clearly shows agenda. But I will admit hat the denialists also have agenda’s too.

        The problem is that because of a few idiots the whole science behind it is decredited. Even for me, so what does that say for others.

        The other thing I discovered that some of the method’s of trying to reduce CO2 emissions were laughably stupid as they would make methane and make things technically worse. The whole thing of basic science is missing from the argument I feel, we need to start again to get credibility.

        The facts are important to me, that’s why I get so angry when scientist act like politicians. 🙂

        I’m glad I have given you some faith!

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Reblogged this on For the Love of Facts and commented:

    This is a guest post I did over on A Momma’s View. Fantastic blog, by the way—I recommend you check it out. I write one of these for her every month. This is a science post and has a little bit of everything, but the overarching theme is discerning the difference between fact and belief (and science versus religion). A huge thanks to the Momma for letting me post on her blog!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s