Brian Ridley — On Science (Thinking in Action) — Book Review
I just finished a book by Brian Ridley “On Science” which investigates the boundaries of science. I read the book from Ketebe Publications, a Turkish translation made by Orhan Tuncay, published in July 2022. It is a very fascinating book with a lot of philosophical debates. The writer explains his ideas with careful examination and clear wording. This is a book review about this book.
Although the book is very deep and explanatory, in some subjects I have different opinions than Brian. For example, Brian [1] says that we can see magic in the technicians’ intuitions. I think we see the distillation of experience from the technicians. With experience and technique knowledge, a technician can know what to think, how to think, and how to execute. There is nothing magic related to this subject. A technician can and will (over time) know the problem of a machine by the subtle errors. By experience learned from the errors that he/she made, a technician will be an expert on that subject. Errors create new processes, and new processes create memory, memory creates an experience. Without errors, we cannot learn and be an expert in that subject.
Brian [1] states that on page 29, science will not explain gravity ever. History is not kind to persons who make big statements like this, and I do not think Brian’s fate will be different. Gravity will be explained with science. These explanations are beyond our reach because of mathematics, background physics, etc. With the right background, scientists will figure out gravity. (History is not kind to persons who make big statements like me either). Science; exactly explain things through trial-error experiments. “Why” do atoms form bonds? Because of free Gibbs energy. “Why” an atom is stable? Because of electromagnetic forces between proton and electron. Down below between quarks. Why gravity pulls big objects to themselves? With the right number of questions and a smaller number of answers, science will explain gravity.
As we come to the big question, big “Why”. Why this universe exists? When did time start? These questions must be answered by the people, things, and beings outside of time. I think these questions cannot be answered by the beings inside of space and time. We must be outside of time to investigate time. We need to experiment with it and investigate it. In order to experiment with something, we need to control the environment around it. That is the most fundamental specialty of testing and experimenting. You need to separate the subject from its environment in order to work on it. In order to work on a chemical, you need to control it, separate it from external forces, and the environment, and work on it. In order to study time, you need to control it, separate it, and be “outside of time”.
Brian [1] says that “Non-scientific values affect the daily applications”. I also think that our thoughts, ideas, and prejudices come to the laboratory with us. That is a fact. The laboratory cannot function without humans and humans cannot function without prejudices. We must acknowledge them and decrease prejudices to the lowest, however, the hypothesis is a prejudice all along. Science cannot happen without prejudices. We are designing an experiment with an expected result; we are trying to figure out whether our prejudice is right or wrong. You cannot separate humans from their prejudices. But we need to give up our hypotheses and prejudices when they are wrong. This is what makes science different. Always testing, always experimenting to reduce prejudices and hypotheses to the lowest. Prejudices always, and will affect the results of the laboratory. Science tries to lessen the impact of prejudices by leaving them at the first discrepancy.
I agree with Brian [1] when he talks about psychology. He wrote that “Psychology phenomena are highly genuine because humans are genuine”. You cannot and will not find two people with the same psychology in the world. Humans grow in different environments, and environments affect people differently. I can laugh and pass on a joke while another person gets offended by it. Also, another person can be my twin. There are a lot of parameters. Maybe we can model the environments and acted behavior on them in the future. However, this reductionist approach highly underestimates the parameters related to humans and the brain. I do not claim that we are special and brain works in a special way. But there is something that cannot be explained by science until now (it might be in the future) in everyone that enables us to understand this world. Animals have models of their world, however not as detailed as ours. For example, when I listen to Sibelius, I get excited, I get sad, and I get inexplicable feelings towards it. This cannot and will not be modeled by a scientist; this cannot be installed on an AI. Because these feelings are not modeled after all. If it was modeled, it cannot be genuine. This is a very genuine feeling. The same person cannot get the same emotions towards the same phenomena. “You cannot bathe in the same river twice”. Everything, every parameter changes with time.
When consciousness is explained, we will get a new picture of humanity, I think we will be “outside of consciousness” which we can experiment with it. This will be a highly important subject in science. However, I think that this amount of chaos and randomness, cannot be modeled with 0,1. We need other numbers between 0 and 1. We need gray areas.
References
[1] B. Ridley, Bilimin Sınırları (On Science) Bilimin Doğası Üzerine Soruşturmalar, İstanbul: Ketebe, 2022.
