Why science?

I just finished a book called Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge by biologist, philosopher, and environmentalist E.O. Wilson. One of my first posts on this blog I wrote about this book, back in December 2007 when I first started reading it. Wilson is trying to unite the branches of science, namely the hard and soft sciences, to more fully explain the human condition. Reading it got me to thinking about science; specifically the question, "Why Science?" This post is my attempt to answer this question.

Curiosity is a trait possessed by humans that doesn't exactly distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Yet, it is what we do with the results of our inquiries that elevates us with regard to how we encounter the world. Because curiosity has no greater, wide-reaching benefit if nothing comes about as a result. Many a Blue Jay will die from eating a poisonous caterpillar because they have no way of recording the danger of their last meal except through eons of genetic predisposition. Although we are also genetically predisposed to avoid many situations, humans also have the gift of language to convey dangers or advantages encountered as a result of our innate curiosity. What we learn about the world around us is passed down through generations so that others may learn from our follies.

This curiosity is the very foundation of the body of knowledge known as science. Asking questions - the right questions, comprises the very exercise that has elevated our species from smart primate to ruler of all. These questions, though we are wired to fear dark places, help illuminate them in such a way that, while our instinctual fear may remain, they may seem less mystical and dangerous. As we slowly, yet surely remove the veil covering knowledge of the world around us, we begin to fill the gaps once occupied by deities and spirits. Science has no need for leaps of faith; reason and evidence suffice. It is no wonder why many in this country are skeptical of science. They fear the dark places they once held monopoly over are slowly becoming illuminated, leaving less and less for which to rest their kingdoms upon.

That is not to say there is no need for religion. Some form of religion has been present for hundreds of thousands of years, and no doubt some form will endure for as long as humans do. But current religion cannot remain static, clinging to the last vestiges of a world now long gone. It must emulate science and be dynamic to keep its place at the table. Because there are no dogmas in science to shackle its progress, save for the relentless questioning of the fringes of our knowledge, science can afford to be an ever-changing field. There are no infallible figureheads in science, Darwin, Newton, and Einstein notwithstanding, so new scientists are not dissuaded from challenging the established doctrine, save they provide compelling evidence. This argument does not render religion insignificant, however. Unfortunately, science will never inspire the masses like a powerful sermon will. Young and old will never read Newton's Principia Mathmatica to garner guideposts for a moral life. The holy books have that market cornered. But as we flesh out a more clear picture of the world around us, through science, one cannot help but recall a quote by E.O. Wilson, "The essence of humanity's spiritual dilemma is that we evolved genetically to accept one truth and discovered another."

This discovered truth is what gives me hope. As we usher in another scientific golden age, breathtaking discoveries will be made on an almost routine basis. These discoveries will no doubt overturn some established theories of modern science. But the beauty of science, to paraphrase Einstein, is that the solutions we propose, while astoundingly simple and elegant, are subject to dismissal pending one shred of credible evidence to the contrary. One discovery can change the world and how we view our place in it. That discovery will reign supreme until another clarifies it. That is not to say that we cannot look to science for concrete evidence of how the universe works - such world-altering discoveries rarely occur, but it is always better to be correct and humbled than wrong and haughty. Modern science is still in its infancy and in many cases, scientists still grope in the darkness, sifting through seemingly random numbers, looking for the fingerprint of something higher, occasionally stumbling across vague evidence to the fact.

As science begins to fill in gaps once filled by religion, some believers may be tempted to slander science as heartless and cold, a religion for heathens. I disagree. What would a suitable alternative be? To continue ascribing natural events to the supernatural? For the believers of both science and religion, certainly a binding tie must be the fact that the more we uncover the mysteries of the universe, the more we are humbled by the awesome scope and elegant complexity of what we find. As we forge ahead, let us not forget that science is a direct result of our unique form of our innate curiosity. To neglect the very element that defines our humanity, to refuse to add pages to the book of knowledge, is to reject our sacred gift.