What
could a fundamentalist and a scientist have in common? Both build barriers
around their conclusions and refuse to consider anything else. You may have
noticed that the media usually place fundamentalists in the spotlight and focus
on their close-mindedness. However, I just finished reading a great article in BBC’s
Science Focus (Issue 282 / July 2015; p. 23) by Robert Matthews -- How a `crackpot’ theory has just been proved
correct. Matthews puts scientists in the spotlight. Below are quotes from
the article (highlights added).
Back in 1915, Alfred Wegener published The Origin of Continents and Oceans, in
which he presented evidence for what is now called plate tectonics. He hoped
the book would spark interest among geologists. Instead, they seized on the
obvious flaw in the idea: how can continent sized slabs of rock slide around
the Earth?
Now the mystery has been solved – and it turns out Wegener was on the right
track. Using controlled explosions to trigger seismic echoes from deep
within the Earth, a team of researchers in New Zealand has recently found that
the plates of rock making up the crust sit atop pools of slippery, melted rock
around 70-80km down. So it seems that Wegener
wasn’t so crazy after all.
What the new findings, published in Nature, really show is the danger of dismissing a theory just
because it doesn’t fit with current knowledge. This Is the Argument from Omniscience: the assumption that just because we don’t
have an explanation, it means no-one will find one, ever.
That sounds like
arrogance to the point of lunacy. Yet you’ll find plenty of otherwise rational
people wheeling it out to dismiss ideas that they don’t like, such as homeopathy. . .
But I can think of a host of intriguing
theories in everything from cancer therapy to cosmology that keep running into
the Argument from Omniscience: science cannot currently explain them, so it
never will.
There are better rules for judging new
theories. For example, Ockham’s Razor
says -- the more assumptions a theory
makes, the less likely it is to be valid.
And science popularizer Carl Sagan
advocated another rule of thumb -- extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.
These rules are not always easy to
apply, but they do have a solid basis in
the mathematics of evidence – which
the Argument from Omniscience doesn’t.
Please
let us know if you think this is a valuable and important message. If you do,
please go to the TOV
Center Facebook Page and “Like
It” -- click here. Share this with
others too!
Jim
Myers