Yours Truly Scientific...

Here is a misleading comment from a self proclaimed scientist. I call him self-proclaimed, because this comment is not in any way suggestive of the fact that its author is a scientist. There is a huge difference between being a scientist and possessing science degrees. But that’s for a future post. For now, we will focus on what he says,

“Science is only an observation of some facts. The nature is so powerful that all that the scientists (of whom I am one) claim to have invented/discovered are virtually nothing. Many great scientists have admitted this. Of course, Charles Darwin had the right to say what he thought was right and his supporters have the right to endorse him. But no one has the right to say that he alone is right or, more important, what the others say or do is wrong.”

I understand that all our scientific discoveries are primitive and childlike when compared against the enormity of nature. Besides, our discoveries are often confronted by new frontiers of unknowingness. But this ever expanding frontier of ignorance should not prevent the proponents of good scientific theories from questioning other fundamentally flawed hypotheses. A good scientific theory, though it isn’t proven like a high school geometry theorem, isn’t same as an unscientific hunch. And if you ever endorse one of those good scientific theories, it is your duty to question other pseudo scientific hunches and superstitious beliefs. If Edward Jenner hadn’t questioned the theory of evil spirits inflicting small pox, we would have never discovered a vaccine for it. But, how can we pick good scientific theories from the heaps of arbitrary hunches? A good scientific theory varies from an arbitrary hunch by two of its important characteristics. One, it explains a lot with minimum number of assumptions. Two, it makes large number of non falsifiable predictions.

Okay, examples to put these characteristics in perspective.

Observation: Boss steps into the office with a car key in his hand.

Theory 1: Boss has driven to work on that day.

Theory 2: Boss has flown to work in a helicopter.

For the first theory to work, all we need is a simple assumption that all ape descendents of this blue planet, called Earth, do not need a key to start off their extremely complicated and fantastically evolved locomotive process called walking.

But, for the second theory to work, we have to make a whole lot of crazy assumptions. Most of these assumptions will be absurd enough to embarrass even our distant cousins, chimpanzees and gorillas.

In the same way, many non falsifiable predictions can be made based on the first theory. Following predictions are sound and valid, and are not falsifiable by observations; Boss’s car can be seen in the parking lot as long as he is in the office; When Boss is leaving for the day you will not hear any rustling of rotor blades; In spite of your strong conviction that Boss is criminally over paid, he does not earn enough to own a helicopter. But the predictions based on second theory are easily falsifiable. A lunch time walk around the parking lot or a visit to boss's house will debunk most of your predictions based on the helicopter theory.

So, by our principle of minimum assumptions and maximum predictions, theory 1 clearly scores over theory 2. Scientists hold Darwin’s theory of natural selection above all its competing theories solely based these principles. Darwin’s theory of natural selection has satisfactorily explained the origin and evolution of living beings with minimum number of assumptions and maximum number of scientifically proven predictions. So adherents of Darwin’s theory do have the right to debate and debunk its competing theories as long as those theories remain incomprehensible to reason. As someone with the common sense to see why Boss should have driven to work, you have every right to question the helicopter fantasies of your deluded co-workers.