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
