The Limits Of Science

So far, January has been kind of a bullshit month. Final revisions on the paper have been a never-ending nightmare due to PlosOne’s odd and sometimes vague formatting requirements (why would an online journal require abbreviated references?), and it has been snowing and raining too much for me to get out in the field. It has also been cold, and kind of lonely. I wish my cat was here, or a woman. Or both. A furry, sexy, cat woman.

Motivation is scarce, and I haven’t felt like working on the monophyly posts. I felt like writing this instead:

I want to deal some more with alleged limitations on science. I talked about Ken Miller's ad hoc application of the term “supernatural” to keep the existence of God safe from scientific inquiry, and want to deal here with the more general claim by Miller and others that science is restricted to asking questions about things working according to natural, materialistic laws.

In a prior blog, I described what I think science really is, and what it does. The scientific process is designed to establish if something is imaginary or not. We look for observable, repeatable phenomena, and rigorously test whether or not what seems to be happening is just in the imagination of certain individuals, or whether it exists outside of their heads. That is all.

What is it about the scientific methodology that requires that a phenomenon operate within the known laws of nature? Nothing. Science does not distinguish between the “natural” and the “supernatural”, just between the real and the imaginary. Science requires that a phenomenon must be repeatable observable to multiple parties…not that it operate according to the known laws of physics or chemistry.

Saying that “natural laws” put limitations on scientific inquiry is completely ass-backwards in the worst possible way. Our understanding of the laws of physics and chemistry do not dictate scientific inquiry…it’s the other way around. Scientific methodology was looking for what is real, and determined that the laws of physics and chemistry are (probably) reality. If this same methodology could establish that magic was not imaginary, acceptance the reality of magic would be scientific.

Saying that the supernatural is outside of the natural is like distinguishing medicine from “alternative medicine.” As Tim Minchin put it, “alternative medicine” that has actually been shown to work is just…medicine. If the “supernatural” can be shown to be not imaginary, then it becomes “natural”, whether it works according to the known laws of physics or not. What else would it be? If fairies, ghosts, and angels are real, why wouldn’t they be “natural?” We didn’t create them in a lab. What is it that makes them “unnatural” or “supernatural?” Why wouldn’t the “laws of nature” just be expanded to encompass…whatever it is that makes them work, regardless of whether we ever understand that process?

For example, you tell me that you have a magic crystal that you can turn into a flower, and then back again, by saying a magic word. So, myself and five other scientists take you into a small room full of cameras and recording equipment, search you to make sure you aren’t concealing anything, have you put the crystal on the table and put your hands clearly where we can see them, and (when WE are ready), have you say the word. We all watch the crystal turn into a flower. We ask you to say it again, and it turns back into a crystal.

We repeat the process several times. We record the transformation, and your voice, and scrutinize both. We bring in instruments to detect electrical activity, magnetism, gravitational changes, etc…, and they detect nothing unusual. We take samples from the crystal and flower, and analyze them chemically, again finding nothing unusual. We subject you to blood tests, CAT scans, all kind of medical tests, and ascertain that you are not a robot or alien with some kind of device inside you that can alter the physical properties of matter. We become convinced that the transformation is really happening, and find no evidence that known any known physical or chemical processes are at work.

Then we send you to another group of scientists, who do the whole thing over again.

What I just described is scientific confirmation of the existence of “magic.” The phenomenon is repeatable, it can be observed by multiple observers (repeatedly), and careful experimental controls demonstrate that it is not a hoax. Moreover, the phenomenon does not appear to not operate according to any known physical or chemical processes. Viola, the “supernatural” just became a thing which can be shown to probably be real, and is therefore scientific.

Why hasn’t this actually happened? Because psychics can’t actually do what they say they can do once you take away all their cheats. Because ghost hunters can’t actually get a supernatural phenomenon on camera in decent lighting allowing observers to establish that someone isn’t using mirrors or wires. Because little girls can only get clear, sharp photographs of fairies with no one else around. The “supernatural” isn’t “unscientific” because it is “outside of natural laws”. It is unscientific because it is bullshit. It can only appear to exist through imagination, hallucination, deception, and lying.

And the day you can show that I am wrong, it will become science.