At the heart of science is an essential balance
between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an
openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre
or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly
skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from
deep nonsense. The collective enterprise of
creative thinking and skeptical thinking,
working together, keeps the field on track.
Those two seemingly contradictory attitudes
are, though, in some tension.
Consider this claim: As I walk along, time--as
measured by my wristwatch or my aging process--slows
down. Also, I shrink in the direction of motion.
Also, I get more massive. Who has ever witnessed
such a thing? It's easy to dismiss it out
of hand. Here's another: Matter and antimatter
are all the time, throughout the Universe,
being created from nothing. Here's a third:
Once in a very great while, your car will
spontaneously ooze through the brick wall
of your garage and be found the next morning
on the street. They're all absurd! But the
first is a statement of special relativity,
and the other two are consequences of quantum
mechanics (vacuum fluctuations and barrier
tunneling, they're called). Like it or not,
that's the way the world is. If you insist
it's ridiculous, you'll be forever closed
to some of the major findings on the rules
that govern the Universe.
If you're only skeptical, then no new ideas
make it through to you. You never can learn
anything. You become a crotchety misanthrope
convinced that nonsense is ruling the world.
(There is, of course, much data to support
you.) Since major discoveries at the borderlines
of science are rare, experience will tend
to confirm your grumpiness. But every now
and then a new idea turns out to be on the
mark, valid and wonderful. If you're too resolutely
and uncompromisingly skeptical, you're going
to miss (or resent) the transforming discoveries
in science, and either way you will be obstructing
understanding and progress. Mere skepticism
is not enough.
At the same time, science requires the most
vigorous and uncompromising skepticism, because
the vast majority of ideas are simply wrong,
and the only way to winnow the wheat from
the chaff is by critical experiment and analysis.
If you're open to the point of gullibility
and have not a microgram of skeptical sense
in you, then you cannot distinguish the promising
ideas from the worthless ones. Uncritically
accepting every proffered notion, idea, and
hypothesis is tantamount to knowing nothing.
Ideas contradict one another; only through
skeptical scrutiny can we decide among them.
Some ideas really are better than others.
The judicious mix of these two modes of thought
is central to the success of science. Good
scientists do both. On their own, talking
to themselves, they churn up many new ideas,
and criticize them systematically. Most of
the ideas never make it to the outside world.
Only those that pass a rigorous self-filtration
make it out to be criticized by the rest of
the scientific community.
Because of this dogged mutual criticism and
self-criticism, and the proper reliance on
experiment as the arbiter between contending
hypotheses, many scientists tend to be diffident
about describing their own sense of wonder
at the dawning of a wild surmise. This is
a pity, because these rare exultant moments
demystify and humanize the scientific endeavor.
No one can be entirely open or completely
skeptical. We all must draw the line somewhere.
An ancient Chinese proverb advises, "Better
to be too credulous than too skeptical," but
this is from an extremely conservative society
in which stability was much more prized than
freedom and where the rulers had a powerful
vested interest in not being challenged. Most
scientists, I believe, would say, "Better
to be too skeptical than too credulous." But
neither is easy. Responsible, thouroughgoing,
rigorous skepticism requires a hardnosed habit
of thought that takes practice and training
to master. Credulity -- I think a better word
here is "openness" or "wonder" -- does not
come easily either. If we really are to be
open to counterintuitive ideas in physics
or social organization or anything else, we
must grasp those ideas. It means nothing to
be open to a proposition we don't understand.
Both skepticism and wonder are skills that
need honing and practice. Their harmonious
marriage within the mind of every schoolchild
ought to be a principal goal of public education.
I'd love to see such a domestic felicity portrayed
in the media, television especially: a community
of people really working the mix -- full of
wonder, generously open to every notion, dismissing
nothing except for good reason, but at the
same time, and as second nature, demanding
stringent standards of evidence -- and these
standards applied with at least as much rigor
to what they hold dear as to what they are
tempted to reject with impunity.
