(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS

[Lee Berman]

>Dave Lebling: So, imaging an electron is a significantly harder thing than imaging an 
>array of xenon atoms.
 
But isn't the question more on whether it was harder to do that 30 years ago or image an
electron today? Anyway, I still think it is cool. But I temper the temptation to pride in
this accomplishment ("Homo sapiens scientistensis- masters of the universe!") with Antonio's
reminder that electrons are not and cannot be round or blue. Our deficiencies created that
image. (and yes, many question the reality or "truth" of astronomical photo renditions)
 
>To get back to the topic of Wolfe, he is clearly an engineer (and 
>"scientist" in the lay sense) who also happens to believe in God (though 
>in a heretical way, or so he says). Some on the list seem to be arguing 
>that science is useless or on a par with religious belief in terms of 
>provability. I doubt Wolfe would agree. Science is provable, religion is 
>all about faith: believing the unprovable. 
 
This dichotomy of science and religion is a common one. I understand it. But for me, (my education
and professional experience is in science) I am willing to take the further step of understanding 
science with science. I don't accept the principles of science on faith. But many (most?) scientists
do. And I think there is a reason. It is difficult to maintain the drive of being a successful 
scientist in that competitive, dog-eat-dog world if you waste time doubting your own methods.
 
What I mean is that most scientists are willing to recognize that religion works because it appeals 
to the human psyche. It gives people what they want. It makes them feel good about themselves and
their place in the world.  But who is willing to recognize that science operates on the same sort
of appeal?
 
Why are "hypothesis testing" and "replicable results" and "mathematical modelling" so popular among
scientists? Who decided these criteria constitute "proof"? Scientists did. And they did it for one
basic reason. Agreement on these things make scientists feel good about what they are doing; about 
themselves and their place in the world. It just feels right to most scientists.  There is no other 
possible reason.  (is there?) 
 
[btw, rigorous application of scientific method involves disproof only. There is no "proof"]
 
My reading of Wolfe suggests that he is aware of the faith and feel-good component inherent in science.
You could be projecting your own philosophy on him. But so could I.