Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Doubt as the engine of science?

arroba Email

Yesterday, johnnyb asked whether doubt is the engine of science:

The narrative goes like this: science proceeds by taking everything we think we know and hold dear and doubting it; this doubt is what allows the progress of knowledge. Christopher Hitchens said he was “a skeptic who believes that doubt is the great engine, the great fuel of all inquiry, all discovery, and all innovation.”

Here’s one approach: Doubt isn’t “the engine” of anything at all.

Doubt is by definition a retardant: It causes us to stop, hold back, get more advice, check the stats, read the manual again, phone someone, don’t shoot, don’t shoot, don’t shoot … wait for backup, wait for backup …

As johnnyb points out, doubt doesn’t create ideas by definition. That isn’t its role. So when someone claims that doubt creates ideas in science, I fear we are witnessing a decline of actual science.

We are living in a time where we haven’t been to the moon in forty years but pop culture knows there is a multiverse based on no evidence whatever.

Because, where there is no doubt, there can be no evidence.

See also: How the multiverse got invented without evidence. (Doubt as the engine of science?)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Doubt is not necessarily a bad thing in science. If you have two competing hypothesis in science and both seem plausible then science offers a way to test between the competing hypothesis and see which one is true. But Darwinists don't use their doubt in such a reasonable fashion, but use their doubt hyper-selectively. In fact Charles Darwin's infamous 'horrid doubt', contrary to popular opinion, was in such a hyper-selective fashion. Nancy Pearcey goes over the fallacious nature in which Charles Darwin used his 'horrid doubt' here:
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Darwin's Selective Skepticism People are sometimes under the impression that Darwin himself recognized the problem. They typically cite Darwin's famous "horrid doubt" passage where he questions whether the human mind can be trustworthy if it is a product of evolution: "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy." But, of course, Darwin's theory itself was a "conviction of man's mind." So why should it be "at all trustworthy"? Surprisingly, however, Darwin never confronted this internal contradiction in this theory. Why not? Because he expressed his "horrid doubt" selectively -- only when considering the case for a Creator. From time to time, Darwin admitted that he still found the idea of God persuasive. He once confessed his "inward conviction ... that the Universe is not the result of chance." It was in the next sentence that he expressed his "horrid doubt." So the "conviction" he mistrusted was his lingering conviction that the universe is not the result of chance. In another passage Darwin admitted, "I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man." Again, however, he immediately veered off into skepticism: "But then arises the doubt -- can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?" That is, can it be trusted when it draws "grand conclusions" about a First Cause? Perhaps the concept of God is merely an instinct programmed into us by natural selection, Darwin added, like a monkey's "instinctive fear and hatred of a snake." In short, it was on occasions when Darwin's mind led him to a theistic conclusion that he dismissed the mind as untrustworthy. He failed to recognize that, to be logically consistent, he needed to apply the same skepticism to his own theory. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
And as it is still to this day. Darwinists to this day maintain a steadfast certainty that their atheistic naturalism is true, never allowing it to be fairly tested, (to be fairly doubted as it were), and to see if it is true (by the way, Darwinism fails when it is fairly tested). But, on the other hand, they are more than willing to doubt any and all evidence that points to God, no matter how how reasonable, and compelling, the evidence may be. Indeed, when pressed for evidence to prove that Darwinism may be true, by those of us who reasonably doubt that their theory is true, their response is usually not with any substantiating empirical evidence that can be examined, but their response is usually to call anyone who reasonably doubts their unfounded convictions as unscientific (or even worse). This attitude of hard-core Darwinists, to refuse to ever let their theory be reasonably doubted and tested, is the antithesis of science as it is properly practiced. bornagain77
Isn't the problem when Science takes things on faith ie "Evolution is True!"? According to Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" lecture, lack of doubt is Bad Science. Darwin's Doubt? I started seriously doubting Evo Science big time after reading that book. Faith should be reserved for that which is true. Doubt is the engine of good science imo. ppolish
I commented on johnnyb's post:
@johnnyb You have an interesting insight. The following line brings the little-used-anymore term “scoffer” to mind.
Doubt is purely negative. It only means to cut down what has already been learned after many years.
Solomon had some thoughts on scoffers relevant to your post: “A proud and haughty man— ‘Scoffer’ is his name; He acts with arrogant pride.” – Prov. 21:24 “A scoffer does not love one who corrects him, Nor will he go to the wise.” – Prov. 15:12 “A scoffer seeks wisdom and does not find it, But knowledge is easy to him who understands.” – Prov. 14:6
In the last quote, Solomon points out the failure of those that think doubting, or scoffing, produces anything. I agree with Stephen Sparrow: "Doubt is the engine of unbelief". bb
Doubt is the engine of unbelief (IMHO). Unbelievers are similar to drunks in that they don't know what it is they refuse to believe. Only the believer knows what it is that the unbeliever rejects in much the same way that the drunk may imagine himself to be sober - but the sober can definitely identify the drunk as such. "The righteous shall live by faith." Habakkuk 2:4. Stephen Sparrow

Leave a Reply