[asa] The Purpose of Science and Origins Research

In light of the fact that an assocation of scientists are the best ones to ask about what science is and what it isn't, perhaps the following reflection/observation about the domain of science would be of interest here. Espcially intruiging is the willingness not to give up on such 'ultimate' questions as the origin(s) of the universe and human life, but to contextualize the importance of answering them.
   
  A few months ago Keith Miller surprised me with a statement to the effect that origins of life 'science' could potentially solve the problem of how life and the universe originated. I quickly labelled this view an example of 'scientism.' In response, Keith demonstrated how his views are clearly not scientistic. His position nevertheless continues to intruige me in light of such statements, when considering how he finds balance between faith and reason, and regarding when science and theology overlap and don't 'knock each other out of the ring' but instead find space for cooperative, harmonious dialogue.
   
  No doubt some scientists (will) find the idea of 'science as a narrative' challenging or even insulting to them on a professional scientists. But as persons of faith, perhaps it will give them pause to situate their knowledges of both science and theology as for when they use one in the service of the other. If the limitations of science are clearly expressed, then a boundary zone for dialogue about the spiritual origin(s) of the universe and human life can be respectfully honoured. The opposite position is to uphold sciecne as somehow 'more authoritative' than theology and thus to further notions of a scientific priesthood, where science is a kind of pseudo-religion.
   
  After all, the statement 'our science is our science' seems to be perfectly reasonable given that 'we' all are human beings speaking about it.
   
  Arago
   
  ~
  Can science explain itself?
   
  There have been many times when I asked myself if we scientists, especially those seeking to answer "ultimate" kind of questions such as the origin of the Universe, are not beating on the wrong drum. Of course, by trying to answer such question as the origin of everything, we assume we can. We plow ahead, proposing tentative models that join general relativity and quantum mechanics and use knowledge from high energy physics to propose models where the universe pops out of nothing, no energy required, due to a random quantum fluctuation. To this, we tag along the randomness of fundamental constants, saying that their values are the way they are due to an accident: other universes may well have other values of the charge and mass of the electron and thus completely different properties. So, our universe becomes this very special place where things "conspire" to produce galaxies, stars, planets, and life.
  What if this is all bogus? What if we look at science as a narrative, a description of the world that has limitations based on its structure? The constants of Nature are the letters of the alphabet, the laws are the grammar rules and we build these descriptions through the guiding hand of the so-called scientific method. Period. To say things are this way because otherwise we wouldn't be here to ask the question is to miss the point altogether: things are this way because this is the story we humans tell based on the way we see the world and explain it.
  If we take this to the extreme, it means that we will never be able to answer the question of the origin of the Universe, since it implicitly assumes that science can explain itself. We can build any cool and creative models we want using any marriage of quantum mechanics and relativity, but we still won't understand why these laws and not others. In sense, this means that our science is our science and not something universally true as many believe it is. This is not bad at all, given what we can do with it, but it does place limits on knowledge. Which may also not be a bad thing as well. It's OK not to know everything, it doesn't make science weaker. Only more human.
  by Marcelo Gleiser
   
  ~
  Brazilian physicist MARCELO GLEISER is a professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College where he runs a very active cosmology group. His work in theoretical physics focuses on the dynamical processes that took place during the very early universe. As such, it brings together particle physics, the study of the very small, and cosmology, the study of the very large. He is the author of The Dancing Universe: From Creation Myths to the Big Bang; and The Prophet and the Astronomer.

                 
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 2 04:32:57 2006