Real Science is Harder

In this second part of the discussion on chapter 6, we'll look at the fundamentals of scientific inquiry: (1) Observation, (2) Hypothesis, (3) Prediction, and (4) Experiment. First, we observe something, a phenomenon, and then we want to know why it occurred. We speculate by creating a hypothesis, the best explanation for what we've observed. In other words, we come up with a theory to explain why the world behaves this way. But remember: we don't observe theories and hypotheses; they are "stories about the physical drama unfolding behind the scenes." To determine which ones are better than others, we compare how well they predict the world's behavior through predictions and experiments. We test them to see if they have prophesied correctly! Given all of this, keep in mind what Stokes is trying to demonstrate: on what basis does science claim that God's existence is unlikely? If science is bound to their own scientific methodology, are they using that methodology to draw their conclusions about God or something else?

One complication in constructing a scientific theory (model) is that there is usually more than one theory or hypothesis that will match the observations. Remember my wet friend example? There were at least three explanations for why he was wet; I chose the one that I thought was more plausible. It's possible that someone else with different experiences and information (e.g., did not know rain was in the forecast) could have drawn a different conclusion. From a historical science perspective, both helio- (sun) and egocentricity (earth) theories matched observations about the movement of the sun, and could predict those movements. But at least one of them was wrong.

So how does one know which explanation is best? Well, it's complicated. You could say, "All things considered, this is the best one" but that's too simplistic. In my wet friend example, two people could "consider all things," and still come up with different explanations. In many ways, explanations for phenomena are greatly influenced by what we already believe about the world and the way it works. Stokes notes: "In the debate about heliocentricity [the sun revolves around the earth], many factors other than observation played a role in the debate on both sides: beliefs about Neoplatonism, the nature of Scripture, the authority of Aristotle, the authority of the Catholic Church,...and so on." So, we can say with some certainty, that " the beliefs we have strongly influence the beliefs we form. Old beliefs shape new beliefs." Scientific inquiry - like all inquiry - is shaped by belief. Credo ut intelligam.

One more post on this tomorrow.