Yesterday:
- What happened to your blog?
- What do you mean?
- It was full of angst, I remember reading that Explorers and Crusaders entry. Venting about all the bullshit in science, where is that pissed off guy?
- Maybe because my work is just dominating my life, and I don't want to blog about my findings, this field is cut throat. At some point I promised that I would refocus my blog on real science.
- Yeah, but that entry was about science. It was about how we cope with the process. Finding, discovery, model building ... ego.
- OK I'll try something tomorrow.
OK explorers, crusaders, scientists. This all reminded me of another conversation: scientists are the most religious people you'll ever meet. I'm not kidding.
Picture it. A kid growing up. The world is full of amazing things. The kid watches, learns, asks questions. How does it all work? And isn't it mind blowing? He is so dedicated to understand the world in which he lives in that he spends the rest of his life studying it. That's more fanatical than the most crazed religious person. He dedicates his whole freakin' life to Nature.
And what is the world? If you are a die-hard practitioner of any of the Abraham religions, you would say that God was everywhere. God's spirit exists in all of His creation. According to some, His guiding hand is responsible for most if not all the actions that surround us. Well if that were true, I have sacrificed security, a high paying job, normal work hours and my goddamn sperm (and for some of you your eggs) all to study His creation. I beg for money to do it in fact. And this sense of wonder fills my life, fills my every conversation, my every thought, my every freakin' dream/nightmare (like the one where I'm translocating my friends into the ER).
My wife (who is not a scientist) tells me that my coworkers have been the nicest people that she's ever met. They are patient, interested in everything ... and never petty. I can't say that this is true for all scientists, just like it's not true for religious folk. Certain scientists are reclusive and inward; although this is greatly overexaggerated, in my experience scientists fall mostly in the worldly camp. And is it any wonder why they are open minded and willing to explore various different facets of life? We've dedicated ourselves to understanding the Natural world. Now some scientists, like religious zealots, take their own views of the world too seriously and fall in love with their ideas, their interpretations of the world, rather than the world itself ... for more on this idea, read my Explorers and Crusaders entry ... but what do you expect? Our pride of being close to understanding the Truth is the highest goal. It is easy to fall into this trap. The study of Natural phenomena is exhausting and taxing. But the best scientists understand this and try to keep an open yet critical mind.
And this explains one more phenomena, the antagonism between academic and industrial science (for example, pharma/biotech in the life sciences). If you are dedicated to studying Nature, would you want to corrupt this pure endeavour with capitalistic motives? Would you want some money making overlord to tell you what to do? This would be the equivalent of asking a follower of Luther to convert back to being a papist. No, if you are truly committed to the church of science, you must struggle and suffer on your own and find your own way to deeper truths (i.e. basic science), not some trivial application. Now of course this view is fanatical, and it is slowly changing. The reality is that not all of us can follow the golden path to biological enlightenment or whatever nirvana we've tricked ourselves into believing. More and more are realizing that industry is a good compromise. Get a little bit of truth, help your fellow man through the development of new drugs/therapies and other technologies. After all science does cure illnesses with a higher success rate than any religious cult leader. We actually can perform "miracles" (well ... kinda).
To be frank, science is all too often conducted in a manner resembling organized religion. You have your hierarchy, your excommunications, your assembly of archbishops, your secret societies (ASCB anyone?), your rituals & rites (go to any graduation ceremony ... or any qualifying exam). You know, all that crap. But it's not that bad. And the lowest underlings of science have more mobility and a greater voice than in the more conventional religions. In this cult, the greatest mysteries are revealed to all practitioners, our leaders don't have an exclusive telephone line to God.
Yes the wonder of discovery, it's the reason we're really in science. It's that eureka-cum-ecstasy. Let's face it, in this cult the highest joy comes with each step toward understanding Nature. How religious can you get?
So that's it for now, I need to start my workday. A full 10 hours of worship ahead. Hope that I'll reach Nirvana.
- Log in to post comments
ER: is it endoplasmic reticulum or emergency room that you translocate your friends to?
Funny - would that be a Freudian slip on my part?
I thought, for a second, that said pretty. I had this vision of your wife telling you she's quite relieved that none of your coworkers are good looking and she can rest assured you're not tempted to cheat.
I have to say, though, that this post is a quote-miner's paradise. I'm looking forward to creationists crowing about how one science blogger actually admitted that scientists are "more fanatical than the most crazed religious person".
Cute post, Alex, but I'm not convinced. Western religion uses blind faith as its yardstick and scientists tend to lack that quality. Nice comparison of outlook between natural scientists and those religious folk tho.
No blind faith is science? Have you ever tried to talk a scientist out of his favorite model for how is protein is working? No way can you get them off their favorite theory even when staring blindly into the experiment that shows they are wrong.
That post is ridiculous. Blind faith versus science. Way to add fuel to the pseudo-scientist fire.
Matt, you are so right. In fact, I am doing that right now, frantically trying to figure out how to save my current pet hypothesis in the face of data that clear illustrates I am full of it. Moreover, although I am having a moment of clarity now, I will begin an experiment tomorrow to try, yet again, to prove myself right. Luckily we can change our pet hypothesis -- I will try to change mine next week (unless the experiment tomorrow works).
Well to be fair to science, we may over-interpret data to favor our precious models but at least we put our favorite pet theories to the gun. The same cannot be said of organized religions.
Interesting how it is somehow surprising or repulsive that science and religion are not so diametrically opposed after all, at least for arguments sake. Kind of like what they say about communism and fascism...
Faith is not a word exclusive to religion; confidence or trust in an outcome despite the absence of evidence is probably an everyday experience for most people. So why is it so repulsive, despite the fact that it is virtually a defining characteristic of humanity? Because science (like math) is all about methodology and quantification; scientific methodology simply does not allow for belief, except in the "discussion" section.
Ted, didn't I say just the other day that even scientists are faithful?
All systems of thoughts (math, science, religion, philosophy) start out with a number of self-evident truths (axioms, hypothesis,etc.) which are accepted without proof, or in plain man's language, are accepted on faith. You wake up every morning believing that the world around you is real, as opposed to you being a brain-in-a-vat having wild illusions(It doesn't count if you're on cocaine). You have beliefs that are justified on reasonable grounds, but even that requires a modicum of faith that your senses are not fooling you.
Here's a typical Gettier problem: Suppose you're driving through a rural area. As a matter of fact, the region you're driving through contains a lot of fake barns: mere wooden fronts that just look like barns from the road. But you don't know this, and have no reason to suspect it. You look off to your left and you see something that looks like a barn, so you believe "That's a barn." In fact, it is a barn. It's one of the few barns in the region. But you're just lucky. If you had looked at a fake barn instead, you would have believed that it was a barn.
In this case, it seems that your belief that you're driving by a barn is justified or reasonable. After all, it looks like a barn; and you've never heard about a region full of fake barns. And your belief is also true. But philosophers are reluctant to say that you know that you're driving by a barn.
He dedicates his whole freakin' life to Nature.
What about Science or Cell or PNAS or Seed?
Nice post. I know what you mean, because I definitely know people for whom science and religion are near-perfect substitutes. I feel that way about music and some philosophy.
Passion gets you somewhere, obsession gets you killed...or at least gets you blind enough to kill you someday. Same goes to anything that puts too much stock in whatever they believe in.
Science at least to my understanding of what science is about, is the idea that whatever you hypothesize may be wrong. That understanding and proving that you are wrong will take you one miniscule step closer to finding out just what is true. That at least is something every scientist should be happy to know rather than being blinded that we're right all the time.
This:
is a problem.
Because, at some point of your life, if you care at all about people that is, you realize that nothing you find out or discover can ever help them unless it's commercialized. Technology that's locked up in an ivory tower does not benefit the broader populace.
Call me an evil capitalist, but that's why I work in industry.
Oh, my goodness!Well put! Ann Coulter (--scientists and liberals are a godless religious cult--) is right for all the wrong reasons.As are all her anti-science enemies at the other end of the political spectrum who are with religious fervor in denial that Darwinian evolution results in innate differences in intelligence and skills among sexes and races.Polly[Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart--Anne Frank]
Nice post.
It's interesting, you write about how scientists display certain phenotypes that religious followers would use to describe themselves, such as devotion and sacrifice. If God's creation was so sacred to the religious, why aren't they in science? But your commentators are obsessed with phenotypes that atheists use to describe religion, such as dogma and blind faith.
A hundred (and probably even fifty) years ago most of the better scientists were deeply religious. They studied nature to get closer to the mind of god. Thats not very common anymore.