Retorts

Scientists And Belief

In countering what they claim to be a common misconception concerning the scope of science, Neil Broom and Mick Pender [Viewpoint November 1991] have, unfortunately, contributed to the current confusion surrounding the nature of science.

By linking "faith" and "belief" with science, they are smudging the distinction between science and non-science. These words are best left in the non-scientific realm since they suggest a degree of commitment which is inappropriate with respect to scientific propositions, given their provisional nature. Even the "laws of nature" must be open to scrutiny -- they should not be regarded as articles of faith.

Statements such as "if you want to practice science you have to be a believer" and "science actually demands faith" are grist to the anti-science mill.

An argument often used by anti-evolutionists striving for equal time in the science classroom is that evolution is as much a question of faith or belief as creationism. I am an evolutionist, but I do not "believe" in evolution. I accept it on the basis of the evidence for it. Nevertheless, this acceptance is tempered with the realisation that there is always the possibility, no matter how remote, that a scientific proposition is false.

I should like to see scientists refrain from using "I believe" with reference to scientific concepts. Then we might see less of the tendency to blur the distinction between scientific and non-scientific statements which is so prevalent in certain educational circles today.

Warwick Don, Otago University