Candle in the Dark

[Ian Beardsley]

There is a website called Candle in the Dark. A candle in the dark is Carl Sagan’s metaphor for science. In the introduction of the website there is a candle burning in the dark accompanied by the following discourse:
“The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, but it is the best we have. And to abandon it – with its skeptical protocols – is the path to a dark age.”
I would like to discuss this discourse with its accompanying image. The image of the candle in the dark with the accompanying discourse, hits a chord with me for a reason. It reminds me of when I lived on a farm in Oregon with my father, surrounded by rain forest, and under the glowing yellow light of the feather lamp, Venus and the moon out the window poised above the mountains, my father would explain to me why only reason alone could save humanity. With the wind in the background, it activates thoughts of man's struggle from the cave to present day dwellings. If not for ancient man, who squalered in the dirt so I could sleep in a bed, shouldn't we do all we can to guarantee our survival by living in harmony with nature?
And, why is science "the best we have" as said in the opening discourse of this website? I think the answer can be found in the writings of Jacob Bronowski. In his book "Magic, Science, and Civilization" he concludes: "No kind of magic will do. We have to establish a unitary sense of the human situation, of the fact that cognitive knowledge is the one thing that human beings have been endowed with..."
To comment further on this web site's introduction, my father explained to me in a letter that science claims to know no truths, but rather offers the best explanation for what is known at the time, that, it is self-correcting, always changing its outlook. Religion, on the other hand, has problems in that it is static. For example, given the overwhelming geologic information that places the Earth's age at five and a half billion years of age, Christianity goes on asserting that the world is a mere six thousand years old for no other reason than the bible suggests it.
For the past five million years or so primitive man walked the earth, at times with little more than a stone spear point on a stick and no clothes, and faced many of the same possibilities of extinction we face today -- an asteroid hitting the earth or an ice age. Except now with knowledge we have no way of staving off such catastrophes, but have doubled the threat with our technologies. It is amazing that ancient man made it through such vast periods of time with each fleeting instant increasing the possibility of his demise. Yet we are here today, descended from them through the countless eons with our sophisticated shelters, transportation vehicles and information processors. That which lay before us now to ensure the continuance of our species we have found out is a monumental task. It is no less than seek out other worlds. That is, to go the immense distances to the stars that are separated by an unimaginably cold space.
I can't help but feel as if these thoughts prompt a passage by Carl Sagan. Let me see if I can recite it from memory: "The surface of the Earth is the Shore of the cosmic ocean. From it we have learned most of what we know. Recently we have waded out. Enough to wet our ankles. Some part of our being knows that this is from where we came. The ocean calls. We long to return."

[ApostateAbe]

I share your enthusiasm for Carl Sagan and your father's outlook on science, and very many of us good old boys share it also. I hope there will be another Carl Sagan sometime to pick up where the old man left off.

[Ian Beardsley]

I share your enthusiasm for Carl Sagan and your father's outlook on science, and very many of us good old boys share it also. I hope there will be another Carl Sagan sometime to pick up where the old man left off.
He will return, but not in the same form. I say so by induction: first we had Newton, then Einstein, then Sagan, all so different, yet so much alike...my god, I think I sort of sound like Yoda.

[squian]

Ian,

Let me introduce some skepticism about the OP.

There are many advancements in history that are not the result of science. Human beings stopped living in caves long before the even the first hints of science with Greek philosophers such as Aristotle or Democritus. How do we know science has provided any advantages to humanity?

In survival terms, houses were built, animals domesticated, and plants harvested all without science. Since science, what more has humanity done to guarantee survival? Does this outweigh the fact that science also provided the means to destroy ourselves? For that matter, if we can destroy ourselves, there hardly seems any guarantee of survival.

The fundamental question I have is about the value of "the candle in the dark". How do we know we are better off with the flicker light of a candle than without it? In other words, what is the value of "cognitive knowledge"?

[JoeP]

I share your enthusiasm for Carl Sagan and your father's outlook on science, and very many of us good old boys share it also. I hope there will be another Carl Sagan sometime to pick up where the old man left off.
He will return, but not in the same form. I say so by induction: first we had Newton, then Einstein, then Sagan, all so different, yet so much alike...my god, I think I sort of sound like Yoda.
:yoda: Strong is the force with this one.

Your post title reminds me of the saying "no amount of darkness can extinguish the light of one candle" - which also says something about science and learning.

:meditate:

But in the quote from Bronowski, this statement struck me: "No kind of magic will do. We have to establish a unitary sense of the human situation, of the fact that cognitive knowledge is the one thing that human beings have been endowed with..." The antipathy to magic is surely about specific aspects of magic, like secret knowledge. Would-be practitioners of magic are not that different from scientists: seeking knowledge and power to control the world. It is "good" in science to reveal and share your knowledge, but not all scientists do that. I'd guess that a desire to investigate magic was the essence of early science.

Another angle altogether is the attitude that we can't enquire about something because "it's magic", but that's just a figure of speech. This is really about superstition and religion. This is probably what Bronowski is, rightly, opposing science to.

Magic: :yup2: :qyes:

Superstition: :glare: :qno:

joe

[Socratoad]

At some risk of being labelled the resident luddite on these boards, I am somewhat taken aback by the religiosity many seem to acquire when speaking of science. I really do not have anything against science per se, just the ever increasing attitude within our societies in general to equate all that is good in the world with science.

Science without empathy, science without regard to outcome, and science that must press forward on every front just because it is possible to do so, must in my opinion go hand in hand with a re -evaluation of values that I think are sorely needed throughout society ......none so much as the prevailing economic system.

I have not been very well lately and so seem to be unable to fully articulate these values of which I feel so very strongly, and so I ask for your indulgence in helping to think through these matters, rather than just a spirited defence of the status quo

And no, I'm not one of the Henny Penny "the sky is falling " crowd. Just a person who observes and wonders.

[Ian Beardsley]

Ian,

Let me introduce some skepticism about the OP.

There are many advancements in history that are not the result of science. Human beings stopped living in caves long before the even the first hints of science with Greek philosophers such as Aristotle or Democritus. How do we know science has provided any advantages to humanity?

In survival terms, houses were built, animals domesticated, and plants harvested all without science. Since science, what more has humanity done to guarantee survival? Does this outweigh the fact that science also provided the means to destroy ourselves? For that matter, if we can destroy ourselves, there hardly seems any guarantee of survival.

That is a very good point, and something I would not have thought of in a thousand years. It is very interesting to ponder. It makes one wonder, what would say the native American Indians have stumbled across if Europeans did not arrive here so early on and were not here to change their course. Surely if they looked to the sky and saw the moon, they might have wondered if they could visit it. And indeed that is where it all begins, with merely wondering. How they would have devised a way to get to it, may have been very different than science as we know it.

[Dingfod]

They probably would've built a giant bow and arrow and tried to shoot someone to the moon.[/smartass jerk]

[Socratoad]

Ian,

Let me introduce some skepticism about the OP.

There are many advancements in history that are not the result of science. Human beings stopped living in caves long before the even the first hints of science with Greek philosophers such as Aristotle or Democritus. How do we know science has provided any advantages to humanity?

In survival terms, houses were built, animals domesticated, and plants harvested all without science. Since science, what more has humanity done to guarantee survival? Does this outweigh the fact that science also provided the means to destroy ourselves? For that matter, if we can destroy ourselves, there hardly seems any guarantee of survival.

That is a very good point, and something I would not have thought of in a thousand years. It is very interesting to ponder. It makes one wonder, what would say the native American Indians have stumbled across if Europeans did not arrive here so early on and were not here to change their course. Surely if they looked to the sky and saw the moon, they might have wondered if they could visit it. And indeed that is where it all begins, with merely wondering. How they would have devised a way to get to it, may have been very different than science as we know it.

Well Ian, like you I wonder just what sort of science system they would have created, however I like to hope that it just might have been founded upon a less rapacious value system.

Speaking of the indigenous inhabitants of North America, I cannot help but to have noticed that the smaller tribes seem to have been much more just and sane than the so-called great native civilizations .....but that would be subject for another thread.

[Cool Hand]

Ian,

Let me introduce some skepticism about the OP.

There are many advancements in history that are not the result of science. Human beings stopped living in caves long before the even the first hints of science with Greek philosophers such as Aristotle or Democritus. How do we know science has provided any advantages to humanity?

In survival terms, houses were built, animals domesticated, and plants harvested all without science. Since science, what more has humanity done to guarantee survival? Does this outweigh the fact that science also provided the means to destroy ourselves? For that matter, if we can destroy ourselves, there hardly seems any guarantee of survival.

The fundamental question I have is about the value of "the candle in the dark". How do we know we are better off with the flicker light of a candle than without it? In other words, what is the value of "cognitive knowledge"?

Yours is a question worth asking, but I have to wonder why you or anyone else might think the answer is anything but self-evident.

You can label the scientific method or its yield "cognitive knowledge" if you like, although that label is probably not accurate to cognitive psychologists, to neuro-biologists, or to scientists in general. Nevertheless, the knowledge humankind gains about the world (including about humankind itself) from rigorous application of the scientific method is sufficiently its own end as to justify looking for it. The scientific method is the best means of gaining knowledge in which we can place our confidence and trust. Put more succinctly, knowing is better than believing.

Technology is the practical application of knowledge gained from science. Surely no one seriously contends that humankind would be better served by not having ready access to modern medicines, to antiseptic surgery, to non-invasive methods of exploring the body, to vaccines, to research into cancer and heart disease and AIDS? What about running water and electricity? What about convenient and cost-effective means of long distance transportation and communication? The list goes on.

I disagree with your assertion that science did not contribute to humans' developing houses, domesticating animals, or harvesting crops. Structural design and engineering, even of primitive houses, is a techonology; it is an application of scientific principles for practical purposes. So is observing wild animal species and learning to breed them selectively for domestication. So is observing plant growth and experimenting with cultivation and harvesting, and then developing a reasoned, methodical approach to farming. The scientific method employed today by science professionals is more rigorous than it was before Sir Isaac Newton "invented" it more than 300 years ago. Indeed, today there is far more peer review involved in formal scientific disciplines than Newton could have foreseen. Nevertheless, I believe it is fair to call what ancient agrarians practiced millenia ago a primitive kind of science.

Science is not necessarily something relegated to a formal laboratory setting. Science is a method of learning. It can take place anywhere, at any time, by anyone who employs its rigorous approach to discovery.

Tainting science itself with the notion that it has provided us with the means to destroy ourselves is little more than anti-science rhetoric. Science is not some evil beast of which we must maintain control before it can escape. It is not an enemy of humankind. It is simply a means we employ for gaining knowledge.

Clearly, knowledge can be used for "good" and knowledge can be used for--dare I say it?--"evil." That the latter is true is no reason to condemn knowledge itself, or by extension, the best method for gaining knowledge about our universe, on large and small scales--science. One might even say not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Cool Hand

[Kamen]

I share your enthusiasm for Carl Sagan and your father's outlook on science, and very many of us good old boys share it also. I hope there will be another Carl Sagan sometime to pick up where the old man left off.


Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Jared Diamond are all worthy successors to Sagan.


That is a very good point, and something I would not have thought of in a thousand years. It is very interesting to ponder. It makes one wonder, what would say the native American Indians have stumbled across if Europeans did not arrive here so early on and were not here to change their course. Surely if they looked to the sky and saw the moon, they might have wondered if they could visit it. And indeed that is where it all begins, with merely wondering. How they would have devised a way to get to it, may have been very different than science as we know it.

I highly recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393317552/qid=1097527891/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-3457496-7163345?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Jared Diamond. He discusses many of the same issues you raise. He traces accomplishments of various cultures from domestication of animals to developing writing, and explains the path taken by different civilizations and the current Western dominance.

Edited to add the link to the book.

Edited again- Livius, I recommend the book to you as well. It discusses methods of domestications, reasons why some animals were domesticated and some on and so forth in detail. :)

[livius drusus]

I disagree with your assertion that science did not contribute to humans' developing houses, domesticating animals, or harvesting crops. Structural design and engineering, even of primitive houses, is a techonology; it is an application of scientific principles for practical purposes. So is observing wild animal species and learning to breed them selectively for domestication. So is observing plant growth and experimenting with cultivation and harvesting, and then developing a reasoned, methodical approach to farming.

I think that's assuming quite a bit about their methodology. How do you know they devised breeding or agricultural systems via observation? Why not dumb luck and repetition? Technology can be created even amidst a total ignorance of all the applicable scientific principles, I think.

[Cool Hand]

I disagree with your assertion that science did not contribute to humans' developing houses, domesticating animals, or harvesting crops. Structural design and engineering, even of primitive houses, is a techonology; it is an application of scientific principles for practical purposes. So is observing wild animal species and learning to breed them selectively for domestication. So is observing plant growth and experimenting with cultivation and harvesting, and then developing a reasoned, methodical approach to farming.

I think that's assuming quite a bit about their methodology. How do you know they devised breeding or agricultural systems via observation? Why not dumb luck and repetition? Technology can be created even amidst a total ignorance of all the applicable scientific principles, I think.

That is an interesting point. Actually, I thought of something very similar while I was writing my post above, but I decided to go with a liberal definition of science. I was and am willing to allow for a more primitive, less rigorous methodology than that generally accepted in scientific circles today.

I'm less inclined to discount their efforts and abilities by labeling them "dumb luck and repetition," however. I think there is an unfortunate tendency of modern humans to look upon ancient accomplishments with too much wonder and awe. We look at Stonehenge, for instance, and are puzzled as to how a primitive people could have engineered the thing thousands of years ago. That's modern hubris. The evidence suggests very strongly that an ancient people did gather heavy stones from great distances and transport them to the Stonehenge site for the construction of its monument and/or astronomical marking device. In fact, teams of anthropologists and engineers have been able to replicate what we presume to be some of their efforts using what we believe to be their ancient technology. That we find such a feat so remarkable probably reveals more about our modern lack of appreciation for creativity and ingenuity than it does about the insight and skills our ancestors apparently possessed.

Although it is certainly possible to stumble upon an effective method for cultivating crops with dumb luck, I suggest that it is far more likely that cultivating and harvesting crops was an ongoing experiment with studied feedback and considered corrections until effective methods were discovered/invented. Actually, more effective techiniques are still being invented. I'm not suggesting that ancient farmers took into account all the geological, meteorological, and genetic variables that modern farmers do. Even if their premises were flawed according to modern agricultural science, however, ancient farmers most likely used some method other than haphazard tossing of seeds to devise effective farming techniques.

I suggest the same is most likely true about domesticating animals. Domesticating animals is genetic engineering, even if one is not aware of the science behind genes and heritability. Breeding to select for certain desirable characteristics is, in principle, the same as modern genetic engineering, only with a different label. We have every reason to conclude that humans have been doing such a thing for thousands of years, even if they couldn't always articulate exactly how or why it worked.

As with farming and taming animals, devising effective homebuilding techniques was probably more deliberate than we might tend to think today. It is unlikely that humans used sophisticated geometry on a wide scale before the time of Pythagoras, or that they calculated maximum loads that could be withstood by different materials. Nevertheless, they built homes that provided adequate shelter and sufficient living space. By today's standards, they probably lacked a sophisticated knowledge of materials science and structural engineering. Nevertheless, depending on where they lived, they probably did learn that stone was better than sticks and leaves, and that loads could span only so far before yielding to pressures to cave in. I suspect, but cannot prove, that some trial and error was involved in learning those things, and that hypotheses that stone would be a better load bearing material than green wood, for instance, were formulated and tested. As above, I'm not suggesting here that ancient civilizations employed as rigorous methods of testing or experimenting as we do today. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to discount their presumed efforts so much as to place them outside what I'm willing to call science.

The atomic model I learned in junior high school is out of date (actually, it was already out of date, but the textbooks had not been sufficiently revised to reflect contemporary physics). The premises behind the model have been invalidated. That doesn't mean the model wasn't based on scientific principles. Of course it was. It is just that those principles have been discarded and replaced with newer, better ones. Pondering that discarded model should be sufficient food for thought about how many discarded "atomic models" we might find in the fields of primitive farmers who lived thousands of years ago. I'm willing to call some of those farmers scientists.

Cool Hand

[Kamen]

All right, I dug out Guns Germs and Steel and reread the chapters about domestication and cultivation of wild plants.

Here is a summary of some of the salient points.

Plant domestication goes back over 10,000 years. Almonds could be selected for non bitter qualities wild almonds have, due to a single point genetic mutation, while acorns were never domesticated due to various genetic disadvantages. People harvested individual plants that were nutritionally advantageous, and how they later cultivated them by changing their environment. Interestingly, by Roman times almost all of today's crops have been cultivated. There are almost no recently cultivated plants, with the exception of pecans (cultivated in 1846) and strawberries (cultivated by monks in the Middle Ages). That suggests that early farmers were extremely sophisticated in the cultivation methods, as hundreds of varieties of wild plants scientists attempted to cultivate in the last century did not lend themselves to cultivation. In other words, they cultivated all that was possible, and even modern sophisticated agricultural technology has been unable to cultivate new species. The differences country to country are due to indigenous varieties of plants.

There is archeological evidence that people as far back as 10,000 BC collected more than a hundred seed varieties, and categorized them into non poisonous, poisonous, and toxic plants where toxins could be removed by special preparation. Furthermore, the plants chosen to be cultivated are the most palatable and largest seeded wild grass, so farmers selected the best of the dozens of species of wild grass to cultivate. That suggests a certain sophistication in their methods.

Similar observations apply to domestication of animals. The ancient 14 species of herbivorous domestic animals are still the only domestic animals, even though efforts have been made to domesticate others. All species for whose dates of domestication we have archeological evidence were domesticated between 8000 and 2500 BC. Since 2500 BC there have been no additions. Some animals, just like plants are just more suitable for domestication. Attempts were made to domesticate zebras, cheetahs, elephants and others, and they are unsuccessful to date. Now some of them have been tamed, but tamed animals are just wild animals captured and tamed. True domesticated animals differ from their wild ancestors in ways more useful to humans.

I think the thoroughness and success of the early farmers speaks for a long term scientific approach to agriculture.

[Roland98]

I think the thoroughness and success of the early farmers speaks for a long term scientific approach to agriculture.

I agree. I think science is as old as the earliest "why's" and "how's." Certainly, dumb luck probably played a role in some of it; but it does today as well (and has played a role in many scientific and technological advancements).

[Cool Hand]

Cool. Thanks, Kamen. I'll have to look up that book.

I have to admit that most of my very limited understanding of archaeology and anthropology comes from bits and pieces from here and there, with too much of it from documentary films made for television. On the other hand, many of these contain some of the most up-to-date findings and theories. Thus, with the proper credentials and standards, many of them are reliable sources of information. Also, many of the best of them present the information in such a way that I will absorb and remember much of it later. I also enjoy reading current material in popular science magazines like Scientific American and Discover. Of course, I understand that such periodicals are not scientific journals used as primary sources of scientific study, but they happen to be good sources for the layperson to catch a glimpse of what is happening in the research laboratory and in the field.

Cool Hand

[The Lone Ranger]

There's no necessary dichotomy between dumb luck and science. As Isaac Asimov pointed out, a great many scientific discoveries began with the phrase, "Gee, that's funny . . ."

In its broadest sense, "science" is just a willingness to seek naturalistic explanations for phenomena (and preferably, to test them). As Sagan pointed out once, science is as old as our species. The first "scientist," Sagan argued, was the first person who saw something (s)he couldn't explain, and instead of just chalking it up to the "will of the gods" or whatever and forgetting about it, set out to try to figure it out.

I'd agree that in the broadest sense, people were doing science when they noted that some materials and techniques were better for building houses than are others, and made the perfectly rational decision to stick with what works, rather than to build each new home out of randomly-chosen materials.

Our ancestors weren't dumb. They were perfectly capable of learning what does and doesn't work, and rejecting that which doesn't. How many of us would survive if suddenly deposited onto a Pleistocene landscape and expected to figure out how to provide our own food, shelter, clothing, and weapons?

Cheers,

Michael

[livius drusus]

That is an interesting point. Actually, I thought of something very similar while I was writing my post above, but I decided to go with a liberal definition of science. I was and am willing to allow for a more primitive, less rigorous methodology than that generally accepted in scientific circles today.

At what point, then, does the term scientific method lose all meaning? If the application of scientific principles is too stringent a standard and we move on to The Lone Ranger's seeking naturalistic explanations for phenomena standard or to Roland's questioning standard, then what exactly is the "scientific method"? Can you define it for me in a way that encompasses all these standards?

I think there are a bunch of methods used in science, including dumb luck, intuitive leaps, wacky theorizing which seems to have no grounding in physical fact at all. It's the term "scientific method" which I find a misnomer.

I'm less inclined to discount their efforts and abilities by labeling them "dumb luck and repetition," however.

I don't discount their efforts and abilities in the least by suggesting dumb luck and repetition could have led to technological innovation. I think Eureka moments are wonderful, brilliant things. I think trying to squeeze them into some method box discounts the often random nature of human genius.

That we find such a feat so remarkable probably reveals more about our modern lack of appreciation for creativity and ingenuity than it does about the insight and skills our ancestors apparently possessed.

What do you mean we, kemosabe? ;)

Although it is certainly possible to stumble upon an effective method for cultivating crops with dumb luck, I suggest that it is far more likely that cultivating and harvesting crops was an ongoing experiment with studied feedback and considered corrections until effective methods were discovered/invented.

I'm sure that's part of it, but I submit that there was no one way, one method. Some people stumbled on a wild grape vine and took a chance, others sent surveyers out with cuneiform tablets to record who did what when and to what end. I bet both of them prayed their asses off.

Even if their premises were flawed according to modern agricultural science, however, ancient farmers most likely used some method other than haphazard tossing of seeds to devise effective farming techniques.

It's not an either/or scenario. I imagine what methods were used depended on the size of the holding, the number of mouths to feed, the soil, the weather, the individual, the community, the culture, any number of factors.

As above, I'm not suggesting here that ancient civilizations employed as rigorous methods of testing or experimenting as we do today. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to discount their presumed efforts so much as to place them outside what I'm willing to call science.

See above. In the end, I think what you're willing to call science is too narrow.

Pondering that discarded model should be sufficient food for thought about how many discarded "atomic models" we might find in the fields of primitive farmers who lived thousands of years ago. I'm willing to call some of those farmers scientists.

I'm willing to call them all scientists, frankly, because I think that science depends on the random, the chaotic, the lucky, the inductive leap, just as much as it does on the standard observation, experimentation, confirmation process.

[livius drusus]

In its broadest sense, "science" is just a willingness to seek naturalistic explanations for phenomena (and preferably, to test them).

I don't think definition washes either, or else every one of those ancient farmers would have to discount the effect of the divine before counting as a scientist. How does understanding the value of crop rotation translate into attributing a naturalistic explanation to the phenomenon?

As Sagan pointed out once, science is as old as our species. The first "scientist," Sagan argued, was the first person who saw something (s)he couldn't explain, and instead of just chalking it up to the "will of the gods" or whatever and forgetting about it, set out to try to figure it out.

I can't think of a single ancient agricultural society that didn't have a healthy committment to scrying and appeasing the will of the gods. It seems to me that naturalistic explanations of how things work aren't at all mutually exclusive with non-naturalistic explanations of why things work.

[Roland98]

That is an interesting point. Actually, I thought of something very similar while I was writing my post above, but I decided to go with a liberal definition of science. I was and am willing to allow for a more primitive, less rigorous methodology than that generally accepted in scientific circles today.

At what point, then, does the term scientific method lose all meaning? If the application of scientific principles is too stringent a standard and we move on to The Lone Ranger's seeking naturalistic explanations for phenomena standard or to Roland's questioning standard, then what exactly is the "scientific method"? Can you define it for me in a way that encompasses all these standards?

I think there are a bunch of methods used in science, including dumb luck, intuitive leaps, wacky theorizing which seems to have no grounding in physical fact at all. It's the term "scientific method" which I find a misnomer.

As I see it (with the disclaimer that this is just my view) is that at its most basic, the scientific method is simply observation, experimentation, and then learning from your new knowledge and applying it again; lather, rinse, repeat. Whether someone really understands they're "doing science" or anything like that is irrelevant to me, as is their reason for getting to the more "formal" methodology portion (meaning, I don't care if they decided to investigate it due to a stroke of luck, a random wondering, or a school assignment, for example).

I think a great way to look at this is through the eyes of a child. Every day is a science experiment for them. "What happens if I drop this ball on the ground? Will it fall like that every time? or What happens if I cover up this toy with a blanket? Will it be there when I remove the blanket?" So they observe, then they test (and test, and test, and test, and test...) until they come to a conclusion about some aspect of the world. They then use this knowledge to make future decisions ("If I hide this toy under the blanket, maybe big sister won't see it and I can play with it on my own later"). Basic and elementary to be sure, but the methodology really isn't all that different from what I do in the lab every day; hypothesize, test, re-test, build on the knowledge I've learned. And you can easily imagine the wheels turning for someone who's witnessed a lightning strike and wonders how they can re-create the flame; or seen a particular crop mutation and thinks about ways to cultivate it.

I'm willing to call them all scientists, frankly, because I think that science depends on the random, the chaotic, the lucky, the inductive leap, just as much as it does on the standard observation, experimentation, confirmation process.

I agree with that. And I think many times, the former are necessary to get to the latter; that's what I'm trying to say above, but doing it badly, I think. :)

[JoeP]

I can't think of a single ancient agricultural society that didn't have a healthy committment to scrying and appeasing the will of the gods.
Can you name a single modern nation, agricultural or industrial, that doesn't? I bet there were rationalists and atheists 15,000 years ago. But then as now, the overall behaviour of society includes superstitious elements.

Sorry: I am not responding to all the bits of this thread I'd like to.

[squian]

Science is a method of learning. It can take place anywhere, at any time, by anyone who employs its rigorous approach to discovery.

This does not sit well with me. Nor does any definition of science that allows for people 10,000 years ago to be practicing it. For me, science is not a method of individual learning but a social method of learning. Fundamentally, this is because there can not be such a thing as "objectivity for one". There is no "universal truth" only the individual truths that each of us perceives. Science leverages the common mechanisms in our brains to achieve some consensus on our views of reality. Science allows us to learn collectively. The rigor of science is that it is practiced with some degree of consistency between practioners. Until you can formalize the rules for consistency, how is it rigor at all?

In any case, I think we all agree that it is a way to obtain knowledge. I wholeheartedly agree with Cool Hand's sentiment that such a goal is worthy in and of itself. But for the same reason that Cool Hand says it's rhetorical to taint science with the creation of the means of destruction, I think it's equally rhetorical to say science provides the means of survival. Knowledge is simply a tool, which, alone, provides as much for humanity as a screwdriver without screws.

To me, the belief that science itself has advanced humanity is philosophical idealism. It's not that we just "know" how to destroy humanity. We have constructed the means to do so. Similarly it's not that we just "know" how to build a home, breed animals, or construct skyscrapers, it's that we do these things. Just as bees can build a hive without "knowing" about hexagons, so too, human beings can construct things and create value without scientific knowledge. The key to our survival is our endeavor to use the tools we are given to reshape our world. The key to our survival is our labor, not our knowledge.