The natural foundation and evolution of science

Essay by Abd (discuss • contribs), see page history.

Comment on this essay is welcome on the attached Discussion page

Science is a development and tweak of a natural process that is not uniquely human.

• Organisms with a nervous system develop memory, that is, response to stimuli based on experience, as distinct from "instinct" or hard-wired response, present without experience. This is not uniquely human, by far, but it occurs in humans. We respond to stimuli directly based on experience, without "higher consciousness" of the source or process. This happens immediately and constantly, mediated in the nervous system, in the "back brain" and below, and, in a different and more complex way, in the cerebral cortex.

• With language, we develop words and patterns of words that are associated with these responses. However, the primary response to remembered trauma or satisfaction is emotional, not verbal.

• Our basic response is "good" or "bad," generating responses of affinity or aversion.

Development of theory step 1

We develop "explanations" that tie together our expectations into verbal analytical structures. "B follows A *because* C and D." These explanations allow prediction, the extension of prediction outside of already established response.

Step 2

As our set of explanations becomes strongly predictive, we feel safe in our ability to predict the future. The explanations are satisfying, they give us a sense that we are in control of life, where we have power over the conditions we consider controlling and causative. Even where we do not have control, we still experience a satisfaction in having a strong model of life.

Fear

We have an associated fear of the unknown. If there are unknown forces operating, our predictive models are defective and the future is unpredictable. If we do not have a basic trust in reality, that reality may be considered safe, this does not dominate us, but if our trust in reality is not secure, if we require "understanding" for psychological stability, new data that does not fit our developed model of reality will trigger aversive reaction

Development of "conservation of models"

When new data is observed that does not fit our predictions, we search for ways to interpret the data that do not destabilize our models. We take new data and predict "explanations" for this data within our existing models. If we can find such explanations, we are satisfied, we feel safe.

This process is, within science, the extension of science into new realms of explanation, when existing models are adequate to explain the data, and merely need extended interpretation and application. This process, however, does not allow "new science," where something is missing from existing models, has not been predicted and is not predictable from such models.

Resistance

Established models become highly conservative, because defect in the established models creates anxiety. If we were "wrong" about these models, that are based so extensively on prior predictive success, then we could be wrong about everything. So we search for reasons to reject the new data as misleading and explainable with specific or generic possibilities, such as "He's lying." "He's deluded," "It's a mistake." "It's fraudulent." "There must be an unknown artifact." "Artifact X could be happening." These are all hypotheses that could be raised with any new data that does not fit our models.

Science

Science develops when we test the assumptions that make us feel safe, when we attempt to prove them incorrect, i.e., we make predictions as to expectation from the assumptions and attempt to show that these predictions fail. That is, we attempt to falsify our own assumptions. If we are certain of our models, we do not bother with this; hence, skepticism, the allowance of possible error, is crucial to science.

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience develops when we create personally satisfying models that maintain our sense of understanding, and do not attempt to show that these models fail, or the models are not testable, they are "explanatory" without improving predictive power. This is properly called "pseudoscience" when the models use scientific language without the active testing that science requires. However, this is also called "faith," when it does not pretend to be science. As "faith," this is completely normal; a generic model such as "God has power over all things, and God is kind and merciful," combined with ideas such as "It may look bad, but when we see the end of it, we will see that it is good," generate security, and some sense of security is essential to functional health.

Pseudoskepticism

Pseudoskepticism is skepticism that is only skeptical of the models of others, not of one's own models. It is a form of pseudoscience, because it proposes strong skepticism about any new data that threatens existing models, while avoiding skepticism of the existing models.

Pseudoskepticism has a strong preference for models that reject new data, and an active pseudoskeptic will show certainty that some new report is fraud, delusion, or error.

A genuine skeptic will reserve judgment.

Belief

Where a new model increases the sense of personal safety of an individual, the reverse of skepticism may operate. We "believe" the new reports. We reject contrary data and we reject skepticism as biased.

Implications

We practice science, as distinct from pseudoscience, when we test the assumptions that make us feel safe. So for someone inclined to be a believer, we attempt to falsify these satisfying assumptions. We attempt to prove that the skeptics and pseudoskeptics are correct.

If we are skeptical (or pseudoskeptical), we attempt to falsify, again, our satisfying assumptions, i.e, that so-and-so is a fraud, that such-and-such experimental result is artifact.

Attachment

Key to science is recognition of attachment and a stepping outside of it, into detachment, where observation is less and less colored by expectation.

Science, understood this way, is consistent with certain aspects of religious tradition, where detachment is recognized as the source of ignorance and suffering, and the practice of detachment is developed.