On April 6th of this year, WHO recommended that healthy people not wear masks. On June 5th, they recommended that everyone wear masks if transmission of the coronavirus is widespread. Recently, Anders Tegnel, the chief epidemiologist in Sweden downplayed the importance of masks (although he admits that they can help). On this issue of great import, science seems to say one thing, then another.
So can we trust science?
Some Say “no”
Some have seen medical science’s reversals as evidence that science does not work—that we cannot trust it. The mask discussion above only illustrates a common place reality that science often claims one thing and then later revises its position.
Given the revisionary conclusions of science, many have simply lost faith in it. Small wonder then that large numbers of North Americans carry skepticism about vaccines, 5G, and other medical and technological advances.
So, then, I have to ask again: can we trust science?
Why We Can Say “Yes”
We can trust science but only if we know what science is. Most of assume science provides certainty about the world around us. It does not. It is not meant to. And by its very nature, science can only provide probable answers to our questions—never certain ones. At least, if certainty means an answer that can never be improved upon or revised.
Theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli describes science as being reliable because “it provides us with the best answers we have at present” (2017: 260). “Science is not reliable,” he writes, “because it provides certainty.” (260).
New findings bring improvements and revisions to science. And so scientific answers are not definitive. “They are reliable because they are not definitive” (261), explains Rovelli. Good science involves “a radical distrust in certainty” (261).
And this must be the case since science observes the natural world, forms hypotheses, and tests them. It discovers little by little glimpses of the nature of things. But the vast mystery of the universe from biology to quantum mechanics still eludes our full understanding. We are small; the universe is not.
Certain and Probable Knowledge
The limits and prospects of science should not surprise us. The merely probable nature of natural science is just what it is. It cannot be more than it is. We should not expect it to provide absolute certainty—if that means its conclusions can never be improved upon or challenged.
Yet this probabilistic nature of natural sciences does not make it useless. We live on probability. I have sat on chairs many times. I predict the next time I sit on a chair it will not break. I am usually right. So, my science here proves rightly almost all the time. It works. That’s just life.
(It is a bit more complicated than I make it sound because some truths can form first principles for sound conclusions. And some metaphysical conclusions can have certainty. But let’s forgive my oversimplification for the sake of argument).
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) helps us think through certain and probable knowledge—at least when it comes to faith. He distinguishes certain beliefs of Revelation (scripture) and probable conclusions that come from authorities (philosophy, theology). In his first question of the Summa, he explains:
Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. (I.Q1.A8).
Thomas tells us that Scripture informs our faith certainly. External authorities can only give probability.
I think by analogy we can think about how science works. Science may have certain first principles (reason, etc.). But it can only provide probability.
Final Thoughts
We can trust science because it is open to revise and modify its conclusions. It admits wrongs. It corrects them. We cannot trust science to provide certainty about ultimate things. That alone belongs to revelation.
We trust doctors. We should. We trust our senses. We should. We trust many kinds of experts. We should trust them all—as long as we can verify they have the expertise that deserves trust. But we give anyone the kind of trust they deserve: merely probable.
Yet that does not mean chaos and complete uncertainty. I always sit down on my chair expecting it not to break. That’s the only way I can live. Probability is not bad; it just has limits. So then does science. And that’s okay.
Discover more from Wyatt Graham
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks Wyatt.
There is a common sense wisdom in your words.
I might quibble with the assertion that we trust doctors / scientists when we can verify their expertise – alone. We need to have some verification of their integrity and compassion as well. Expertise is a problem when it is weaponized for personal gain or power. An epidemiologist might be brilliant but on the take from big Pharma, Bill Gates, and/or the CCP! (Just as an example, of course).
I’ve always liked what Vance Havner used to say: “Sin has gotten us into more trouble than science will ever get us out of.”
Anyway, thanks for this one.
Thanks for reading, Doug!
There’s only one problem with this – scientists (not science) have long asserted that they’re findings are the gospel. As a little kid in elementary school, I didn’t learn that scientists thought Pluto was a planet – I was taught it was a planet. Imagine my surprise when years later I find out it’s “no longer a planet”. Haven’t checked recently but seems like I remember hearing someone saying it’s a planet again. Science may be humble but scientists think a lot of their work and somehow their findings are passed off as fact. It’s no wonder why people are skeptical of science – because they’ve been trained to think scientific findings are fact.
While true that science and new research/science corrects and changes previous views or facts, we can’t divorce the idea that some flip-flops are indeed politically, ideologically or worldview related….therein lies the potential danger on calling some things “science.” Therein lies the potential distrust.
1 Tim 6:20
Agreed.
Hi brother, hope you’re doing well. I agree that science changes and we need to be open to understanding and accepting new evidence as it is discovered. I’m curious though in the example you cited at the beginning. The WHO is currently advocating masks while Sweden is not. How do we reconcile that and which scientific approach do we deem to be the more accurate one? Even the fact that the WHO changed their recommendation within 2 months. What significant and controlled studies were done in the intervening months that led to that change? I haven’t been able to find anything related to that. When the scientists themselves arrive at different conclusions when looking at the same facts in front of them, which do we follow? I think we can look at evolutionary vs creation science for another example. If we are to accept the majority science opinion that would mean accepting evolutionary biology. Again I agree with your premise but it think we need account for bias, agenda or other motivations that can taint or otherwise inform scientific conclusions.
Further to your point, in the case of the WHO reversal, it really had nothing to do with science. The initial “don’t wear mask” recommendation was based on doctors thinking like health care professionals – they wear PPE to protect themselves. That PPE has to be changed between every patient, and changed with meticulous care to effectively protect the health care professional. Knowing that the masses have neither the access to sufficient PPE, nor the training to correctly change PPE, individuals would not be able to protect themselves by wearing masks.
It took the WHO months to realize that if the masses wore masks, they would protect everyone else from themselves. Thus the population as a whole benefits. The masses wear masks to protect others, not themselves. The initial WHO recommendation and the months to realize a better recommendation, was in spite of the fact that the WHO was always recommending that you cough and sneeze into your elbow. They knew the masses could do things to protect others, they just couldn’t see past their own PPE training to understand how masks could be used in this way. The issue here wasn’t science. The issue was our difficulty in getting past our own biases, presuppositions and training so that we can correctly understand and apply the science.
Thanks Wyatt this is helpful. I will just noted that on masks ‘science’ never revised it’s position – even the WHO’s own documentation states that masks are not supported by the hard science. Politics has trumped science through and through during this ‘pandemic’. That doesn’t mean we give up in science which is a useful tool to study the world around us, but it is God’s world and his word gives science its context and its limits. Trust but verify – use common sense, look for biases, and these days – follow the money.