Pharyngula::Townes and the Templeton Prize

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Townes and the Templeton Prize

PZ Myers • 150 Comments (last page)

This Charles Townes fellow sounds like a smart guy: Nobel laureate, inventor of the laser, etc. So why am I so unimpressed when I read this tripe he utters about science and religion, and for which he has just won the Templeton Prize?

Fifty years ago, he published a scientific paper outlining his views that science and religion were closely related.

Since then, the two fields, especially in areas like quantum mechanics, have been coming together in a less fractious relationship. In a statement, Mr Townes said many people did not realise that science involves faith.

"But nothing is absolutely proved," he said. "Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic."

What bunk. Science differs from religion in that it rejects faith as a source of information or as part of the process of acquiring evidence. We replace it with skepticism. Emphasizing faith as a component of science tells us nothing but that Townes doesn't know much about what he's doing.

And babbling about "wonderful things" coming from both science and religion doesn't make sense, either. No amount of faith-based, religious thinking was going to come up with a laser or the structure of DNA or the sliding filament model of muscle contraction. In his list of "observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic," one thing stands out as singularly useless: faith. Non-scientists can use the others to accomplish good things, but "faith" is nothing. Nothing but delusion and blind inertia.

I know what religious people are going to claim: that maybe science can come up with a laser, but it takes religion to come up with purpose and wonder and joy and sacrifice and service. That's baloney, and is one of my pet peeves; those are human concerns that are warped and filtered and twisted by the straightjacket of religion. Humanists, atheists, and agnostics develop excellent human values without the foolishness of faith or the gobbledygook of god. And religion has always been as good at inspiring evil as it does good.

Townes is also confused about the "aha!" experience.

"A scientist thinks, worries, and is eager to find a solution to a problem. Sometimes, just sometimes, a resolution comes," he said. "Looked at this way, there really is a clear similarity between a religious revelation and a scientific one. Yes, I do believe that."

I'm sure he does believe that. And I'm sure there are neurological similarities in how the brain responds to any insight, whether scientific, religious, or philosophical. But Townes is doing a disservice to science by muddying the waters and pretending that there is any other similarity in the processes. Obviously, the religious just eat this stuff up, though.

Pious frauds are a dime a dozen, but pious frauds who have won a Nobel prize? They're worth a million and a half dollars.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2008/EwX2qzWv/

Comments:

#18202: — 03/10 at 09:08 AM
...(R)eligion has always been as good at inspiring evil as it does good.

Yes. Right on.

#18203: — 03/10 at 09:35 AM
Since then, the two fields, especially in areas like quantum mechanics, have been coming together in a less fractious relationship.

Idle speculation revolving around quantum mechanics and God does not make for a genuine relationship between science and religion, and is nothing more than a rehash of the anthropic principle.

#18204: Chris Clarke — 03/10 at 09:44 AM
I generally use the phrase "quantum mechanics" as a handy field mark of the tinfoil-hatted loon.

Of course, you have to key out actual physicists, but they are not exactly thick on the ground.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson

#18205: — 03/10 at 10:01 AM
Townes' stuff is more about the ability of a person to partition his mind than about similarities between science and religion. It's obvious that people can maintain two, separate, conflicting concepts in their minds, as long as they can partition them. The fact that they have both ideas doesn't mean they are similar or even compatible.

#18207: — 03/10 at 10:09 AM
ugh. So depressing. I guess I can understand some scientists' wish to avoid the shitstorm that would follow if they came out and told the truth, that the edifice of science is in direct opposition to almost everything that's historically fallen under the umbrella concept of religion. But while the ones who realize that are politely keeping their mouths shut, some jackass or other keeps popping up to talk about science and religion's common ground.

Or, like Gould in Rocks of Ages (heartbreaking for being great readin and mercifully brief, but glaringly wrong), a body'll try to redefine religion to cover the bits that can't conflict with science (metaphysics, meditation), and completely ignoring the fact that for most people throughout most of history, religion has meant believing stories dictated by authority figures about invisible (or sometimes-visible) persons in the sky making demands about the actions of humans and punishing us according to their whim.

I kinda think science is at odds with that.

#18210: Buridan — 03/10 at 10:36 AM
The parallel between scientific problem solving and faith is a standard canard in the science and religion literature. They attempt to characterize scientific discoveries as consisting of eureka type moments that involve bursts of inspiration, and of course these moments are said to be the same as moments of religious inspiration.

I’ve always wondered where they get this idea that scientific discovery involves bursts of inspiration. No! It involves laborious and at times boring work in which so-called “discoveries” emerge over time, and usually after several missteps (if you’re lucky). Eureka moments are extremely rare in science and make for great movie plots but that’s not how science normally operates.

I would suggest they stop looking for science in Hollywood and spend some time with real scientists.

#18211: Mike — 03/10 at 10:46 AM
I thought I was dreaming when I heard this on NPR.

You'd think that Townes would at least understand conditional probability enough to know that the seeming improbability of the laws of physics being "just right" isn't an argument for intelligent design. (That the universe being as it is is certain, given that we're here.)

#18212: — 03/10 at 10:54 AM
One of the most interesting things, in
my opinion, that came out of the Sokal
hoax was:

http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/sokalhoax.html

It's a paper about how many of the founding
scientists of quantum mechanics were just
as wooly-headed about QM and religion
as the people that we tend to make fun of
now.

#18214: Dr Pretorius — 03/10 at 11:08 AM
You know, whether or not science has 'eureka' moments is kind of irrelevant to whether it's at all like religion. Even if we were to suppose that all scientific discoveries were the result of 'eureka' moments this would be true.

For example, I had a truly amazing 'eureka' moment once -- it was a little under twenty years ago, but it was strong enough that I remember it still today. I was reading a book about Jet Engines and all of a sudden -- EUREKA! I understood how Jet Engines on planes made them fly. You see -- the jet engine shoots a bunch of hot air really really fast out in front of the plane and that creates enough momentum to make the plane go forward.*

It took quite a while for my parents to convince me that, despite how clearly intuitive that was, it wasn't how planes worked.

The point is of course that 'eureka' moments are in no way reliable at all -- sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Having them, however nice it is, is entirely irrelevant to science.

*(I'll note that 'a little under twenty years ago' means that I was about seven.)

#18217: Scott Spiegelberg — 03/10 at 11:25 AM
I haven't read Townes' article, and got out of the car just as the NPR story was starting (it wasn't a driveway moment for me). So I make no claims that the following interpretation is an accurate portrayal of what Townes intends in his statements.

To me, faith in science is instanced in the trust in inductive and deductive reasoning, despite the lack of independent confirmation of these logical systems. Faith in science is also seen in the belief that truth can be found through experimentation. Is there a scientific test to prove this belief? Godel says no.

As for wonderful things arising from religion, I could point out a series of religiously-inspired artworks. Bach, Stravinsky, Tavener, Messiaen, and others were devout believers who explored ways to communicate their beliefs in music, creating moments of intense beauty in their searches. There are also many interesting philosophical concepts that arose from theological arguments, something I regard as wonderful.

Of course, there are plenty of wonderful things that have nothing to do with religion, and plenty of awful things associated with both religion and with secularism. I prefer to remain open-minded about all sides.

#18218: Rob Loftis — 03/10 at 11:32 AM
Since I teach philosophy of science at the freshmen level, I have someone tell me that science and religion are the same because they both involve faith at least once a semester.

I've also discovered the root of this strange statement: in many ordinary contexts the words "faith" and "belief" are interchangable. Students then notice that science is, in part, a belief system. It generates propositions that people believe in, and it uses methods that people believe are reliable. See, there's belief in there. Therefore there is faith.

I'd be happy to do away with the word "faith" altogether. It is much clearer to talk about justified belief and unjustified belief. Other uses of the word faith can be replaced by words like perseverance.

#18220: Pete — 03/10 at 11:54 AM
Dr. Pretorius, you are right on. That's the whole difference between science and religion -- if we are lucky enough to have any insights, we still check them out! Perhaps we could start a prize, given annually, to the person who does the most to cement the incompatibility between religion and science in the public mind. Of course.. it'd probably just be a plaque, or something, not..$1.5 million.

Speaking of "aha!" moments, PLoS biology had an interesting article: Neural Basis of Solving Problems with Insight. (Link is to a summary; click "read research article" on the right side to get the whole story.)

(Then again, $1.5e6 is a lot of money. Richard Dawkins mentions that Daniel Dennett once remarked to him, regarding the Templeton prize, "Richard, if ever you fall on hard times...")

#18221: — 03/10 at 11:55 AM
"Faith in science is also seen in the belief that truth can be found through experimentation. Is there a scientific test to prove this belief? Godel says no."

You don't need Kurt Godel for that! David Hume will suffice.

#18222: — 03/10 at 11:57 AM
The air shoots backward, but the principle is otherwise correct.

And I agree with those criticisms of what I call "mystic physics" interpretations of quantum mechanics, like what might be described as quantum psychokinesis or "wishing will make it so".

This is "deduced" from a phenomenon known as the collapse of the wavefunction. If one does a two-slit experiment with light, the photons will spread out and travel through both slits, but will become shrunken down as they interact with the detector. This happens as part of observing them, and some interpreters of QM conclude from them that it's the presence of an observer, conscious mind and all, that does this. And thus conclude that consciousness has some ability to collapse wavefunctions, a sort of quantum psychokinesis.

Not surprisingly, many New Agers like this and other such QM interpretations.

#18227: — 03/10 at 12:27 PM
Of course, Science generates a lot of Evil, too.

Bwaa Ha Ha!

#18228: PZ Myers — 03/10 at 12:31 PM
Well, yeah...but we don't pretend to be the source of all moral thought.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#18229: David Heddle — 03/10 at 12:39 PM
Townes is right. And he is obviously right. All science is based on two faith principles: (1) That the universe is ordered and (2) that human beings are capable of understanding (and discovering) that order. If you don’t take it on faith that either is true, then there is no reason to do science.

He is also right about the “aha!” experience. The sudden realization that you understand something that an instant before eluded you is quite similar in science and religion. Of course, only someone who has had both would know that.

Physicists are (in my experience) much more likely to see the natural relationship between science and religion than biologists. Heinemann prize winner Robert Griffiths wrote:

If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.

#18231: PZ Myers — 03/10 at 12:54 PM
I see you like to misuse the word "faith", too.

The order we observe isn't an a priori consequence of "faith"; it's an empirical result. You might argue that it was a leap of faith to begin studying science, that there was an assumption of underlying order to be discovered, but once you start seeing results and order, it's no longer a matter of this nebulous, useless thing you call "faith".

That recognition of apparent order in the world around us tickles similar parts of the brain might be true and interesting, but it's irrelevant. Science doesn't rely on feelings, much as individual scientists might enjoy the experience. What matters is the process around those sensations, those are what define science, and religion lacks them.

Your comment about physicists does not commend them, you know.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#18233: Chris Clarke — 03/10 at 01:15 PM
That recognition of apparent order in the world around us tickles similar parts of the brain might be true and interesting, but it's irrelevant.

That same aspect of human cognition generates both cladistic taxonomy and astrology. The difference is in the fact-checking.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson

#18234: Hank Fox — 03/10 at 01:17 PM
After reading about this on BBC News online, I was thinking about the difference between the godders and the pro-science/pro-reason people -- and how both camps would take the news that an actual Nobel-prize-winning physicist had spoken out in favor of goddiness.

On the one side, mild disappointment. On the other, glee. Why glee? Because of the extreme rarity of the event. Compare how often religious people avail themselves of the fruits of science to how often actual scientists tout the benefits of blind faith. Godders treasure such people more than blue diamonds.

As a parallel, I’ve been in online arguments with people who claimed that there was no such thing as objective reality, and that everything was actually happening only in their heads.

They CLAIMED to believe it, and there was never any way I could argue them out of it in those brief discussions. But I realized that none of them ACTUALLY believed what they said they believed -- their broader actions (for instance, the fact that they were bothering to argue passionately on the subject with another person, and that I could occasionally surprise them with the things I said) showed that they didn't.

Ditto for this godder-science conflict. I have the happy thought that not even the godders believe what they're saying, not on the deepest levels. Because they go to doctors. They drive cars. They use computers. They wear glasses. They buy insurance. (Even the salesmen of religion, Benny Hinn, for instance, treat themselves to the technological comfort of $5,000-a-night hotel rooms, rather than sleeping under the stars, trusting that the Great Magugoo will keep the mosquitoes and rain away.)

Given a choice, most godders choose the real and the rational, no matter what they give lip service to. (I’m aware that some few godders are perfectly willing to let their children die rather than take them to doctors, but very few in either camp see them as anything but nutcases. In this case, THEY are the rarity that makes the news.)

So the battle of science vs. religion is already won. Or lost, if you’re on the wrong side.

The real issue is to keep the people who are saying things they don’t really believe from passing laws that force THE REST OF US to live as if those things were true.

Which, when you think about it, is about as nastily ironic as it gets.

#18235: — 03/10 at 01:30 PM
All science is based on two faith principles: (1) That the universe is ordered and (2) that human beings are capable of understanding (and discovering) that order.

Neither of those assumptions is required for one to do science. In fact science is often counter-intuitive when it comes to common sense notions such as order. One might find a fossil seashell on the top of a mountain and based on the 'order' of things decide that there must have been a great flood that deposited it there.

The following quote from Richard Feynman is worth passing along here:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that."

#18237: Riggsveda — 03/10 at 01:36 PM
Hey, you! I was going to do a piece on this over at corrente and you beat me to it. Because Blogger is from hell and run by Bushists, no doubt.

Anyway, I'm not a scientist, and I have only a laymen's grasp of quantum physics, but I've enjoyed reading about it for the last 30 years anyway. And I don't understand this circling of the wagons at the idea that some of what is still unknown may require a leap of faith (oh, just call it imagination and intuition if it bothers you) to make sense of. Science by its very nature opens up a universe of possibilities that we can't yet verify but can imagine the meaning of. So does spirituality. And over the years I've been amazed at the "mystical" feelings I get from considering quantum theory.
Maybe this makes me a wooly-headed New Age type, but in a world about which we still know so little, I like being able to imagine possibilities beyond those allowed for in high school physics texts, and I like the idea of the “as above, so below” concept of the universe that seems as applicable now to physics as it did in the middle ages when it was conceived by alchemists and magicians.

#18238: — 03/10 at 01:39 PM
Well, there is sometimes faith in science; on that point, Townes his right. Beyond that, he is utterly wrong. Scientific faith is more or less the hope that something will eventually work out. The people developing String Theory didn't know it'd work, so they had to have some faith that they were going in the right direction. What Townes is missing is that they didn't believe in String Theory till there was actual evidence for it. A theist basing faith on science as I outline will definitely not behave as if God exists; he will look for evidence that God exists, but he won't cut corners or live a religious life till there is rigorous scientific or logical proof for that. Mathematics has even more of this scientific faith - Andrew Wiles didn't know Fermat's Last Theorem was correct when he started working on a proof - but again, until you prove the theorem you believe is correct, you will call it not a theorem but a conjecture.

#18240: — 03/10 at 01:53 PM
Just for the record, and speaking from the pespective of one who claims to experience religious faith, I have to say that I find the kind of "mystic physics" being discussed to be nonsense as well. These claims of finding common ground between science and religion in the realm of "quantum uncertainty" seems to be nothing but a conveniently innaccessible gap in which to confine g/God. Beyond the critism that it is a muddying of physics/science, it is bad (IMO) theology as well. I also agree that it is problematic to conflate the terms "faith" and "belief" in order to try to equate science and religious experience.

#18242: Mike — 03/10 at 02:14 PM
If Townes just stuck to saying that science can trigger emotions in scientists as wonderful as those experienced (I understand) by the religious, then that would be fine and perfectly reasonable. After all, we use the same wetware to do science as we do to pray. Can I have my $1.5 million now?

Page 1 of 7 pages 1 2 3 > Last »

Next entry: That revolting article about earwax and smegma

Previous entry: I got a Tangled Bank for my birthday!

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Townes and the Templeton Prize

Info