metonymy4u

My students often ask me how I can justify the teaching of science in the face of their religious or spiritual beliefs? My answer is that I have no need for such a justification, because I don’t accept the premise of their question: that science and religion are incompatible.

For science is nothing but an estimate of probabilities, not a statement of certainty.

As such, it is infinitely open to the spiritual possibility.

As proof, I can give a complete description of the dialectic of science without one single reference to religion.

Check it out:

Science investigates the thesis that “A causes B.”
To do this, we consider an alternative explanation, the anti-thesis, “A does not cause B.”
We then estimate the probability that the anti-thesis is the more accurate statement, and the corresponding probability that by accepting the thesis and rejecting the anti-thesis, we are in error. (This is called a type I error).
Generally, if the probability of being in error is less than 5%, we accept the accuracy of the thesis.
Sometimes we ask for more, and insist on only a 1% probability.
It is an arbitrary line in the sand.
But it seems to work much of the time.
But here’s the thing: does this probability stop us from loving the world?
In fact, science would likely tell say that learning to love the world is a healthy thing to do.
To a 5% probability of success.

And those sound like good odds to me.