What we lose when we put faith over logic By Lisa Randall

How Science Can Lead the Way

What we lose when we put faith over logic

By Lisa Randall

TODAY’S POLITICIANS SEEM COMFORTABLE INVOKING

God and religion than they do presenting facts or numbers. Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her own religious be­liefs. But when science and reason get shortchanged, so does America’s future. With science, we put together observations with explanatory frameworks whose predictions can be tested and ultimately agreed on. Empirically based logic and the re­velatory nature of faith are very different methods for seeking answers, and only logic can be systematically improved and applied. As we head toward the next election, it’s important to keep an eye on how our political leaders view science and its advances, because their attitudes frequently mirror their ap­proaches toward rational decision-making itself.

When Rick Perry, who defends teaching creationism in school, says evolution is merely “a theory that’s out there, it’s got some gaps in it,” he’s demonstrating a fundamental mis­understanding of scientific theory. And when he chooses to pray for the end of a drought rather than critically evaluate climate science, he is displaying the danger of replacing ratio­nal approaches with religion in matters of public policy. Logic tries to resolve paradoxes, whereas much of religious thought thrives on them. Adherents who want to accept both religious influences on the world and scientific explanations for its workings are obliged to confront the chasm between tangible effects and unseen, imperceptible influences that is unbridge­able by logical thought. They have no choice but to admit the inconsistency—or simply overlook the contradiction.

Randall, one of 2007’s TIME 100, Is a professor of physics at Harvard and the author of Knocking on Heaven’s Door:

How Physics and Scientific Thinking  illuminate the Universe and the Modem Work

What we are seeing in the current presidential race is not so much a clash between religion and science as a fun­damental disregard for rational and scientific thinking. All but two of the Republican front runners won’t even consider that man-made global warming might be causing climate change, despite a great deal of evidence that it is. We know CO₂ warms the planet through the greenhouse effect, and we know humans have created a huge increase in CO₂ in the atmosphere by burning coal and oil. That man-made What we are seeing in the current presidential race is not so much a clash between religion and science as a fun­damental disregard for rational and scientific thinking. All but two of the Republican front runners won’t even consider that man-made global warming might be causing climate change, despite a great deal of evidence that it is. We know CO₂ warms the planet through the greenhouse effect, and we know humans have created a huge increase in CO₂ in the atmosphere by burning coal and oil. That man-made certainty does not justify its dismissal.

In fact, an important part of science is understanding uncertainty. When scientists say we know something, we mean we have tested our ideas with a degree of accuracy over a range of scales. Scientists also address the limitations of their theories and define and try to extend the range of applicability. When the method is applied properly, the right results emerge over time.

Public policy is more complicated than clean and controlled experiments, but considering the large and serious issues we face—in the economy, in the environ­ment, in our health and well-being—it’s our responsibility to push reason as far as we can. Far from being isolating, a rational, scientific way of thinking could be unifying. Evaluating alternative strate­gies; reading data, when available, either in the U.S. or other countries, about the relative effectiveness of various policies; and understanding uncertainties—all features of the scientific method—can help us find the right way forward.

In 2009 I testified at a congressional hearing about the importance of basic science—something the Obama Admin­istration made a focal point after years of unscientific and sometimes antiscientific policies by the Bush Administration. The hearing was in a room dedicated to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology in the Rayburn House Office Building. As hooked over the heads of the seated Representatives, I saw a plaque that read, WHERE THERE IS NO VISION, THE PEOPLE PERISH. It is a noble and ac­curate sentiment to display, and its origin  is Proverbs 29: i8.    •

                               TIME October 3, 2011