Scientific Heresy
There are a lot of ideas in science that persist, even in the face of little or no experimental support. For instance, the famous chemist Linus Pauling, recipient of two Nobel Prizes, suggested in 1970 that large doses of vitamin C would ward off the common cold. As a side benefit, he claimed that this vitamin would also help protect against cancer.
Perhaps because of his impressive credentials, Pauling’s claim was not dismissed out of hand by the medical profession. Even though controlled experiments on the use of vitamin C did not substantiate his claims, Pauling added more diseases to his list that could be alleviated by vitamin C. He even proposed mechanisms by which this vitamin works. But further controlled experiments again failed to verify his claims.
But experimental evidence or not, we always have to factor in human nature. I'm a chemist who knew and respected Pauling, who died not long ago in his 94th year. And hey, I still take vitamin C! You see, scientists are not always as rational as they claim. When the famous Danish physicist Neils Bohr was asked whether he believed the horseshoe above his cottage door would bring him good luck, he replied, “No, but they say it works even if you don’t believe in it!”
So next time someone says scientists are always rational, remember the even the big names sometimes believe scientific heresy.
I suppose that most of us can identify with the situation of knowing a fact but acting in a way that entirely betrays that belief. In the case Dr. Humphreys just related, we could think “Well, I know that neither science nor medicine has proven that Vitamin C will help prevent me from getting a cold. Yet, maybe at some point in the future they will prove it. But even if they don’t, there doesn’t seem to be any harm in taking it - just in case. It may not help me but it won’t hurt me either, so why not?” So, while we believe that research says ingesting Vitamin C is of no value against acquiring a cold, we continue our morning vitamin therapy routine.
So, we have to admit that we are inconsistent at times. We believe one thing and do another. Usually we can give some sort of rationalization or explanation to account for it, but it does create a bit of internal tension in us - especially if we are called upon to explain the discrepancy between our beliefs and our behaviours.
This happens all the time in the world around us. “I know smoking is not good for me but...” “I know the law says the speed limit is X, but...” “I know the deadline’s coming up, but...” “I don’t agree with sweatshop labour, but, gee, that store has terrific prices.”
So what does this tell us about ourselves? That what we know in our head to be true doesn’t always translate to our behaviour. That sometimes what we know isn’t the single, most determining factor in how we act. That our desires and our will actually betray what we really believe. And this is an important truth to consider - don’t confuse what you know with what you believe. Knowledge isn’t belief. Knowledge is fact. Belief is commitment to that truth.
As we move into the spiritual realm of discussion, it is important to keep in mind this key distinction between knowledge and belief. Belief certainly relies upon knowledge to inform it. Blind belief or blind faith are not particularly valuable commodities. Belief and faith depend upon knowledge that God or another person or laws of nature will continue to act in the future as they have in the past. Therefore although the future may not be known, one can trust in the character of the person or natural laws.
Belief entails a personal trust in the object, a commitment to rely on the trustworthiness of the other. Belief is more that mere knowledge. It is a faith commitment. In what or in whom are you putting your faith in life? In death?
Dr. David Humphreys and Debbie Hughes
© August 2004
