Science of superstition

The mysterious is the most wonderful experience we can have. True art and true science have their roots in this primordial emotion.

Realist and anti-realist arguments have been at odds for at least a century. Do scientific ideas accurately reflect reality, or are they simply true within a specific conceptual framework? Is science merely useful or adequate from an empirical standpoint, or is there more to it?

The mythical contemporary perception of scientific inquiry is as follows:

Given limitless time and resources, one can produce every imaginable theory without turning to reality. There must be one of these theories that is “true.” Scientists carry out experiments and compare the outcomes to the theories’ predictions in order to choose one or the other. When one or more of a theory’s predictions come true, it is said to be false. A theory cannot be “proved right” by any number of favorable outcomes, i.e., outcomes that support the predictions of the theory. Only reality, that great arbitrator, can disprove a theory.

Jose Ortega y Gasset said (in an unrelated exchange) that all ideas stem from pre-rational beliefs. William James concurred by saying that accepting a truth often requires an act of will which goes beyond facts and into the realm of feelings. Maybe so, but there is little doubt today that beliefs are somehow involved in the formation of many scientific ideas, if not of the very endeavor of Science. After all, Science is a human activity and humans always believe that things exist (=are true) or could be true.

It is customary to distinguish between thinking that something exists, is true, or has value or appropriateness (this is as it should be) and believing that it does. The latter is a propositional attitude, in which we think, wish, feel, and believe that which is being proposed. A belief in A is distinct from a belief in A.

Science places restrictions on itself and holds that only specific entities interact inside clearly defined conceptual frameworks (called theories). Not all things have the capacity to be interconnected. According to the kinds of relationships that entities establish with one another, worldviews categorize, classify, differentiate, and integrate them.

The cycle of formulation, prediction and falsification (or proof) is the core of the human scientific activity. Alleged connections that cannot be captured in these nets of reasoning are cast out either as “hypothetical” or as “false”. In other words: Science defines “relations between entities” as “relations between entities which have been established and tested using the scientific apparatus and arsenal of tools”. This, admittedly, is a very cyclical argument, as close to tautology as it gets.

Everything is connected to everything in ways that we are unaware of, which makes superstition a lot easier concept to grasp. We can only see the effects of these underground currents and infer their existence from the flotsam that can be seen. The planets have an impact on our lives, dry coffee sediments predict the future, black cats herald tragedies, some dates are auspicious, and other numbers should be avoided. The world is dangerous because it is unfathomable. However, the fact that we are unable to discover a hidden link due to our limitations should not be taken to mean that one does not exist.

According to science, there are two types of relationships between entities (physical and abstract alike). Direct links go under the first type, whereas links that go through a third party fall under the second. A and B are evidently connected in the first scenario. In the second example, there doesn’t seem to be a connection between A and B, but C, a third party, might be able to offer one (for instance, if A and B are parts of C or are separately, but concurrently somehow influenced by it).

There are three subcategories within each of these two groups: correlative relationships, functional relationships, and causal relationships.

A and B are said to be causally associated if A always comes first, B never happens without A, and B always happens after A. This appears to be a relationship of correlation (“whenever A happens, B happens”) to the astute eye, and this is accurate. The 1.0 correlation relationship category includes causality. It is a specific instance of the correlation case, which is a more generic situation.

#nature #universe #quantum #science  #superstition