Question 5: Good luck or good management? Part Three.

A quick summary of parts one and two.

(I could pretend this is for the benefit of the reader but it is mainly because I've been very lazy updating the blog and need to remind myself what I'm talking about)

Important point number one: You cannot dismiss a model on subjective grounds. A model is not less valid because you (or any number of other people) do not like it. A model is not less valid because it contradicts a piece of dogma or accepted wisdom. A model is not less valid because it appears to be complicated. A model is not less valid because it appears counter intuitive.

Important point number two: The scientific method is objective and is open to everybody. There is no grand conspiracy within 'science' to exclude particular beliefs or ideas. The criteria for a scientific model are objective and do not depend upon the prejudices of the existing scientific community. If a model can be clearly expressed and can be tested then it is, in the broadest sense of the term, science. If the model is useful (by my slightly non-standard definition of the term) then it is good science.

Good luck or good management?

Back to the post title and back even further to my earlier definition of God.

One of the fundamental characteristics of God is the role of creator. The assertion of the Old Testament is that, in some sense and to some degree, everything that currently exists was created by God. I want to avoid a discussion of the interpretation of Genesis and the specifics of how and when that creation took place and examine whether it is possible to prove or disprove the role in more general terms. Is there a role in our understanding of the observable universe that requires a conscious creator?

An aside on simplicity: in Important Point 1, I dismissed the idea that simplicity should be a guide to the validity of a model, but I'll dip into it briefly anyway. I'm nothing if not inconsistent. A seemingly simple explanation for any complicated observation is "God did it". It is certainly short and pithy, but that is not the same as simple. The explanation "God did it" is only simple if we assume a priori that God exists. If you do not make this assumption, then the explanation for something complicated becomes "Something even more complicated did it." Which is hardly satisfactory. If you combine it with the common reasoning that God must exist because complicated and amazing things exist, then the argument becomes circular: How do you explain the complexity of the universe? God did it. How do you know God exists? Because the universe is complicated.

A conscious creator in science.

None of the current set of models for how we came to be here include a role for a conscious creator. The model of natural selection does not require any intelligent and deliberate input to explain the evolution of the current gamut of life on earth. The stars and planets do not require a conscious hand to explain their positions and movements. To my knowledge, there is no common scientific model for anything that requires a creator.

This is not a concerted and deliberate omission; science has arrived, over the course of a couple of centuries of subjective application of an objective method, at a set of models that simply do not require a creator. There is no gap in the models that can be usefully and testably filled by a creator. The models do not match with observation better if you include a creator somewhere within them.

Now ... science does not know everything. But it can, in principle, model anything, and everything that science has currently modelled works perfectly well without a creator. There is no evidence and, more importantly, no need for a creator.

We are here, to the very best of our understanding, entirely by accident.

Lemma 3: science is objective

I made the distinction in the previous post between 'subjective' and 'objective' when judging the merit of an idea. A valid question is whether a judgement made by humans can ever be truly objective. Humans are fallible and they have selfish agendas and moral beliefs and all manner of prejudices and tastes. An individual scientist can clearly make errors of judgement and can be influenced by his or her own beliefs. Why does an assertion that has been scientifically tested have more value than one that has not?

The answer is in the title. Individual scientists are not necessarily objective, but science and the scientific method are. There is no magic to the scientific method: you come up with an idea, you present that idea in an understandable and testable form, you test the idea against observation and you allow anybody else in the world to test it as well. Science is a group activity open to anybody who has the capacity to learn the language and the methods. There are no sacred cows: any idea can be challenged.

Now ... the scientific community (like society in general) is fairly conservative. When somebody comes along with an observation or a model that challenges the current consensus, it will be greeted with scepticism. But the history of science contains a huge number of minor and major revolutions. Better ideas always win in the end. Our current model of the universe is quite clearly better than it was a century ago.

A conspiracy theorist could argue that the entire scientific community is either deliberately or accidentally misleading itself. But there is nothing unique about scientists and nothing in the scientific method to exclude a specific group or belief. This argument is essentially saying that the entire human race is misleading itself. If you think that science has made a grave mistake, then politely knock on the door and put them right. Copernicus did it. Einstein did it. It is not a closed shop.

Are scientists 100% objective? No. Is every scientific conclusion 100% objective? No.

Are ideas that have been posed and tested via the scientific method more objective than those that have not: absolutely yes.