Why science is right?
This article provides a concise argument on why science is preferred over faith and superstitions.
Contents
01. What is the scientific method?
02. The faith and superstitions
03. Science vs. superstitions
01.) What is the scientific method?
According to the earliest records, science was known to exist in the world since 3000 B.C.; i.e. even during ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations. However, the birth of modern-day science took place during the 16th — 17th centuries in Europe, and this era was famously termed as the “Scientific Revolution”. One of the key concepts that were introduced during this era was the “scientific method”. The scientific method was a known theory for a long, but it was Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626), an English philosopher who systematically proposed it. Since its proposal, this method became the heart of science.
According to this method, observation will bring up questions or problems, and these questions will help to formulate a possible solution which we call a ‘hypothesis’. The hypothesis is a proposed solution and is not known for sure whether it’s true or not. Therefore, we design experiments to test the hypothesis, which will allow us to either accept, reject or modify it [Fig 1].
In other words, science is based on evidence. Thus, in science, a theory must be backed up by sufficient and appropriate evidence to be accepted.
02.) The faith and superstitions
What is faith? and what are superstitions? Both of these terms are of deep and diverse meaning and understanding. Thus, both faith and superstitions cannot be explained by a single definition, and all might not agree with these definitions. For example, the ambiguous nature of ‘faith’ is theorized in many ways, and a decent and concise review of these definitions can be found in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy².
Unlike science, both faith and superstitions do not require provable evidence to accept the theories. Therefore, acceptance is more of a general social agreement rather than the truth. Such theories are likely to be correct or wrong, and no proof exists to validate or back up these theories.
In summary, faith and superstitions both are based on agreement or consensus. If you agree, then it is accepted, and if you disagree, then it is rejected. As a result, even though these concepts are accepted by the majority, that is not necessarily the truth. On the other hand, if the majority denies it, even truth can get negated.
03.) Science vs. superstitions
For proper understanding, I will explain why science is always true by taking prevention and control of covid-19 as an example.
Covid-19 is an RNA viral infection, and like many other RNA viruses, they are quite competent in replicating and shredding themselves, making covid-19 a highly contagious disease.
Scientifically the prevention and protection from this disease are by reducing its transmissibility and destroying the virus. This will make the virus prevent moving from one person to another and eventually, this will eradicate the virus from the human population. To achieve this, covering sites where infection can go in and out of the body such as air passages and mouth by using masks of appropriate pore size in an appropriate manner is essential. The pore size that is less than that of the virus will not allow the virus to trespass the mask. On the other hand, using sanitizer or washing hands with soap will destroy the virus by damaging its components such as the viral envelope³
Therefore, we know why, how, and what is happening when wearing a mask to prevent covid-19, and similarly we know what goes on when we wash our hands. This is what we call science. Experiments are been conducted providing evidence to evaluate the success or/and the failure of using face masks to prevent and control covid-19¹. In addition, science provides the freedom of rejecting a theory if evidence supporting the reason. Furthermore, any theory can be nullified if we are able to disclose enough evidence proving its invalidity. Therefore, science is likely to change too.
Notwithstanding these, superstitions on the other hand are independent of evidence. To consider covid-19 control and prevention as an example for this too.
The above link is an example from India, where people practice various rituals without any evidence to back up their validity, yet many follow these beliefs. Even many may succumb to the disease when following these beliefs or they can encounter misfortunate events too. Yet, the hardcore faith will be difficult to be removed as the human brain tries to justify these failures. For example, if someone dies from drinking a potion prepared without a proper scientific basis the followers will blame the karma or that person’s deeds without questioning the formula of the potion. Therefore, unlike in science with blind beliefs, if something goes wrong, rectification is not an option.
Therefore in my belief, science is capable of providing solutions, that we can accept or reject based on solid evidence, hence science provides the most acceptable truth of the world today.
A British evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins once answered a question from one of his audiences giving reseasons why we should believe in science. I will quote that conversation to conclude this article below:
Audience member: “The question is about the nature of scientific evidence. You both said, and I think most people here would agree with you, that we’re justified in holding a belief if there is evidence for it, or there are logical arguments we can find that support it. But it seems like this in itself is a belief, which would require some form of evidence. If so, I’m wondering what you think would count as evidence in favour of that and, if not, how do we justify choosing that heuristic without appealing to the same standard that we are trying to justify?”
Dawkins: “How do we justify, as it were, that science would give us the truth? It works. Planes fly, cars drive, computers compute. If you base medicine on science, you cure people; if you base the design of planes on science, they fly; if you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works … bitches.”
Bibliography
- An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19, Jeremy Howard, Austin Huang, Zhiyuan Li, Zeynep Tufekci, Vladimir Zdimal, Helene-Mari van der Westhuizen, Arne von Delft, Amy Price, Lex Fridman, Lei-Han Tang, Viola Tang, Gregory L. Watson, Christina E. Bax, Reshama Shaikh, Frederik Questier, Danny Hernandez, Larry F. Chu, Christina M. Ramirez, Anne W. Rimoin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2021, 118 (4) e2014564118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2014564118
- Bishop, John, “Faith”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/faith/.
- Golin, A. P., Choi, D., & Ghahary, A. (2020). Hand sanitizers: A review of ingredients, mechanisms of action, modes of delivery, and efficacy against coronaviruses. American journal of infection control, 48(9), 1062–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.06.182
