Wednesday, August 26, 2009

The Value of Doubt and the Danger of Certainty

This is one of the most important themes underlying my thinking, and it also helps illuminate the general topic of Science versus Religion.

“Conventional Wisdom,” especially from a religious perspective, would generally view Doubt as a negative thing, and Certainty as something to be celebrated, but I think this is completely backwards. This can easily be understood when considering human nature - people generally long to have absolute certainties in their lives, which can be relied on in times of crisis. Great emotional satisfaction and peace can be experienced when one anchors their world view on matters that they see as rock-solid, beyond doubt, even ‘eternal.’

 
This naturally leads into the topic of Epistemology. There are many definitions, but on a practical level, it asks the question of how do we know what we know (or think we know). I have always been intrigued by optical illusions, where our sensory system is fooled into mis-perceiving reality. This is one of my favorites:

 


 
The squares marked A and B are actually the same shade of grey. The first time I saw this, I was “certain” this couldn’t be true, based on my very clear-cut perception. I had to open up the image in Photoshop in order to prove to myself that my senses were in fact deceiving me, and these were identical shades of grey. And even now that I know the truth, there’s still no way I can persuade my brain to “see” these squares as the same shade of grey.

 
If we can be so easily, and so fundamentally, fooled by our senses, which are at least somewhat “objective” how much more can we be fooled in our thought processes, which are much more ephemeral. As with our visual perceptions, we rely quite a bit on our memory, which we initially think is an accurate representation of reality. It turns out that human memory is quite different from the recording of a videocamera, and is in fact quite susceptible to the cognitive equivalent of optical illusions. One can look at the various personal tragedies from a few years back, associated with the recovery of false memories of child abuse, to see how devastating the results can be if you naively assume that memories are a reliable source of objective truth.  Memories are continually shaped and re-shaped over time, as we recall them, experience new things, etc.

 
If we then enter the world of ‘spiritual experiences’ which are even further separated from objective reality, we can begin to understand how and why these phenomena, whatever their source, origin, or validity, simply can’t be implicitly trusted as objective truth.

 
On this basis, “doubt” should be the starting point when attempting to establish what is and isn’t true, with “certainty” basically being a form of mental illusion.

 
As I have studied the variety of human religious experience, I quickly saw that there are people who are absolutely certain, totally convinced that they have the ‘Truth’, that their subjective, inner experiences, have somehow transcended doubt. The problem is, the various ‘Truths’ that these people teach are typically mutually exclusive. This being the case, how can we possibly base our own understanding of what is objectively True on our own personal, subjective experiences, regardless of how intense, or real they seem to be?

 
The scientific method, however imperfectly utilized by scientists, where conclusions are based on actual evidence, reproducible by anyone who would want to verify them, has an incredible track record of increasing humanity’s knowledge of the world around it, as well as of humanity itself. And because it recognizes that ‘Certainty’ can never be achieved, it is self-correcting, as the relatively recent Einsteinian revolution in Physics demonstrates.

 
The general approach of religious institutions is the exact opposite: it starts with the conclusions. The problem with religious dogma is that it establishes “Truths” which by definition cannot be challenged, with no evidence whatsoever backing it other than the inner experiences and perceptions discussed above. Religious certainty is thus seen as an illusion, however well-intentioned it might be.

 
The following books can be quite helpful in fleshing out the various ideas briefly presented above:

 
  • The Seven Sins of Memory - Daniel L. Schacter
  • In Praise of Doubt - Peter Berger and Anton Zijderveld
  • On Being Certain (Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not) - Robert A. Burton, MD
  • Why We Believe What We Believe - Andrew Newberg, MD and Mark Robert Waldman
  • How We Believe - Michael Shermer
  • Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) - Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

 

6 comments:

  1. TEL sets up "science" and "religion" as if they were two legs and then chooses to stand squarely on one leg instead of two -- not to mention the prospect of walking (or I guess in his case, hopping).

    After skillfully demonstrating that even our sense perceptions -- which are the existential basis of science --cannot be fully trusted -- which itself is an existential observation of religious conviction -- he goes on to choose science and science alone as the sole standard of "truth" about "reality" --

    "If we then enter the world of ‘spiritual experiences’ which are even further separated from objective reality ..."

    There are many who approach science with the religious zeal of absolute certainty, while there are some who approach their religions with an embrace of humble doubt.

    TEL's most powerful argument -- that devout believers come to different and even "mutally exclusive" conclusions -- also falls apart on closer examination. Many deeply religious people fully accept the validity of other religious people's spiritual experiences and convictions, even if we do not know how to explain apparent differences in specific histories, practices and beliefs.

    If TEL rediscovered the insight that physical sense experiences may not necessarily be any more "real" or even "objective" than spiritual experiences, he might be closer to walking the path of uncertainty that seems to beckon him -- and be able to walk it with two legs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Regarding science and religion as two legs: I did use these two terms together, but that does not imply I consider them equivalent in terms of their usefulness in the search for truth. So while I see where you’re coming from, I don’t accept that metaphor as applicable to my thinking. I used them together in the generic sense in which they are popularly used, but see no reason to treat them as equivalent or even complementary in terms of establishing truth.

    I agree that there are scientists who exhibit the same dogmatic zeal as religious fanatics, and I reject that as well. And regarding the Scientific Method itself: I don’t know if it’s fully relevant, but I’m reminded of the statement that “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” I am unaware of any legitimate and proven methodology to use, other than the Scientific Method, in the search for truth. I do not consider subjective spiritual experiences, or “revelation” to be a valid method of establishing truth in any way that can be convincing to others.

    And I’ll acknowledge that I may be out of my philosophical depth in addressing the inherent limitations of science and its reliance on sense perception. But from a practical point of view, it seems fairly simple to me: Science and Scientific Methodology utilizes independent instruments of observation, repeatable experimental setups, and requires confirmation by multiple experimenters, in order to avoid subjectivity, self-deception and illusion creeping into the results.

    Yes, scientists still use their fallible senses in order to read the instruments, but given the checks and balances inherent in the Scientific Method, I do not see this as a fundamental limitation.

    Your comments led me to review some of the content in the “In Praise of Doubt” book I referenced, where the practical limits of doubt are addressed:

    “...doubt with no limits at all - doubt that has abandoned any and all certainty - leads to a fruitless subjectivism in which the individual endlessly reflects about options and ponders all possibilities.”

    The use of the Scientific Method has an incredible track record in understanding the world, and our place in it. It is self-correcting and non-dogmatic. I honestly don’t see any superior way of pursuing truth.

    And while I appreciate the tolerance of the deeply religious people Bill speaks of, I cannot recognize the validity of simply accepting incompatible claims about truth. How would those differences ultimately be resolved, and the “final truth” established? This is a subject for another post I have in mind, but I’m putting my money on the consistent, patient use of the Scientific Method, where even today, we are starting to have the tools to begin tackling understanding the nature of thought and consciousness. I have a hope that it will eventually provide answers to the “ultimate” questions previously in the exclusive realm of religion and philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aside from the different mechanisms of gathering data and world view, one of the main differences between science and religion is (or should be) inertia. Religion seeks to reinforce itself by providing a perspective filter that allows new insights or information only if they reinforce the underlying faith. This is high inertia. Science, on the other hand, should neither care nor have a vested interest in the nature of the theories that explain observations most accurately, indicative of low inertia. If religion could easily shed it's baggage to approach truth asymptotically, I think it would have more legitimacy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. An interesting and useful analogy, Jack.

    As I think through this, one of my points is that religion does not provide a methodology with which to identify truth. Saying that they "gather data" at all is even misleading: as you indicate, they just pick and choose among the available anecdotal evidence they come across, and select only those things which reinforce pre-existing beliefs.

    The only methodology whatsoever I can see that is capable of finding and identifying truth will be based on the Scientific Method in one form or another. I just don't see religion as having any usefulness in the search for truth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "they just pick and choose among the available anecdotal evidence they come across, and select only those things which reinforce pre-existing beliefs."

    I doubt the original disciples who witnessed the miracles, death & resurrection of Jesus felt they were picking & choosing anecdotal evidence, and their accounts make it clear that the experience was quite the opposite of reinforcing their pre-existing beliefs.

    An encounter with a revelation of God can be as impactful an experience to the recipient as observing scientific measurements. Both seem to have a vital place in life, for some.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I doubt the original disciples who witnessed the miracles, death & resurrection of Jesus felt they were picking & choosing anecdotal evidence, and their accounts make it clear that the experience was quite the opposite of reinforcing their pre-existing beliefs."

    First, personally I am not inclined to accept those stories as reliable and accurate accounts of actual events and expereinces. But if one does, then yes, this is a legitimate point. I guess I was thinking more of latter-day apologists in their attempts to justify their pre-existing beliefs with "evidence." But you're correct - those with apparently 'primary' experiences are in a different category, as you comment on in your next paragraph.

    "An encounter with a revelation of God can be as impactful an experience to the recipient as observing scientific measurements. Both seem to have a vital place in life, for some."

    No question in my mind - these experiences can and do have a huge impact on people's lives. But my point is that those experiences in and of themselves are simply not useful in terms of identifying actual truth, regardless of the vital place individuals allow them to play in their lives.

    I am fascinated by recent functional MRI and other studies that are being conducted on meditating Buddhist monks, Christians when speaking in tongues, etc. These scientific measurements go beyond impacting the life of the observing scientist - they provide the means to actually understanding the nature of these experiences, using the same methodology that science has used in illuminating so many other phenomena that were previously unexplained, or even attributed to divine involvement.

    ReplyDelete