Why Scientific Explanations are the
Most Probable
Science is a process of eliminating potential causes of phenomena based
on experimentation and observation of measurable variables, otherwise known as
evidence. Scientists develop theories to explain phenomena based on the best
available evidence. As the evidence changes, so do the explanations. Throughout
this process, both the evidence and explanations are thoroughly scrutinized by
the scientific establishment. The peer review process is performed by other
scientists who understand not only the subject matter, proper methods of testing,
observation, and analysis, but also various psychological pitfalls which lead
to bias and skewed data. In short, they are professional critical thinkers and
skeptics. For the scientist submitting papers for review, their incentive is to
uncover major breakthroughs in their field; the greater the breakthroughs, the
greater the prestige. For the peer reviewers, their incentive is to enhance and
maintain the prestige of their publication by only publishing papers that can
hold up to scrutiny. When they publish hogwash, the establishment will consider
the journal to be hogwash.
So what of Occam’s Razor? Well, there are a couple of important points:
- Scientists use Occam’s Razor as the foundation of their evidence-based reasoning.
- For those of us who are not scientists, when a good proportion of scientists agree that a particular explanation is plausible, then that explanation should always be considered the most probable until sufficient evidence suggests otherwise.
For example, science tells us that changes in humidity and temperature
causes wood to expand and contract. As it does so, it makes groaning noises. Now,
say you’re in an old house and you keep hearing groaning noises. Is it a ghost? Maybe, but probably not, since
groaning wood is already a sufficient explanation.
The Probability of the
Supernatural
Supernatural explanations are inherently improbable because they go
against that which has been substantiated by science. For example, to say that
you can “see into the future” completely flies in the face of the known laws of
physics. In order to support such claims, and thus disprove that which has been
supported time and time again by scientists for the past several hundred years,
you would need significant and strong evidence. As Carl Sagan put it, “extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Ever hear of the James Randi foundation? They’re offering $1 Million to
anyone who can “demonstrate a paranormal ability under agreed-upon testing
conditions.[1]”
Since James Randi started offering a price in 1964, there have been 1,000
applicants, and none have been awarded the prize[2].
Likewise, there have been many prayer studies, experiments with dowsers,
psychics, and other sorts of magical practices and phenomena. When reviewing
the evidence provided by these studies, the scientific establishment has
determined that there is no reason to believe magic, spirits, gods, etc. have
any sort of influence in our world. All in all, there is simply no sound
evidence for the supernatural that cannot be better explained by natural forces.
Maybe God purposely stops answering prayers whenever scientists are looking,
and maybe there really are psychics out there who just keep it to themselves. It’s
certainly possible there are forces beyond nature, but given the evidence, it
is not likely.
The God Argument
Many theists and deists believe the universe is far too orderly,
refined, and beautiful for it to have just happened on its own. They often will
point to the complexity of DNA as a go-to example (see http://cnsnews.com/news/article/how-dna-proves-god-made-all-creatures-great-and-small.) Thus, they presume that the all knowing, all
loving, all powerful God of their personal religious traditions must have been
the one to put it all in motion. Is this really the simplest explanation? Well,
think about it. This god is all powerful and all knowing, meaning that he knows
what one electron in the cloud of gas on a planet a billion light years away
has been doing since creation, and what it will be doing for all eternity. Not
only does he know about this one electron, he knows the past, present, and
future of all particles everywhere and can control them to boot. This sounds
like a very complex creature.
Compare this to the scientific explanations (e.g. the Big Bang Theory),
founded on evidence-based reasoning made by some of the most intelligent people
in the world. As Steven Hawking put it, “what I have done is to show that it is
possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of
science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how
the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is
not necessary.”
I am not attempting to prove that God, the supernatural, or “forces
beyond our comprehension” don’t exist. I am merely arguing that, by default,
material explanations for phenomena are more probable than supernatural ones. Keep
this in mind as I proceed to provide alternative natural explanations for phenomena
commonly believed to be evidence of the divine.
Resources:
Richard Dawkins Ultimate 747 Gambit (i.e. the complexity of God vs. the
complexity of the universe)
Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit:
Michael Shermer Baloney Detection Kit:
Another by Michael Shermer on Skepticism:
No comments:
Post a Comment