Richard Feynman (1918–1988) was a Nobel prize-winning physicist whose approach to science was one of skepticism. In a 1966 lecture he defined science as a “belief in the ignorance of experts”. Science is the idea “that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting [man’s] experience from the past.” Feynman’s idea was not new—the motto of the world’s most prestigious scientific institution, the Royal Society, founded in 1660, is Nullius in verba, a Latin phrase meaning “take nobody’s word for it”.
Feynman went on to make an important distinction. In his view, science is not synonymous with the forms or procedures used in developing science. Indeed, those forms and procedures can be imitated carefully, along with elaborate, formal scientific reporting: “We write, experiment, and observe, and do this or that”, yet the result can be pseudo-science. Feynman was concerned that pseudo-scientific imitation was producing “experts” and “pseudo-scientific advisors” who were “tyrannizing” institutions falling under their influence.
Feynman sought to clarify the use of the term science further:
When someone says, “Science teaches such and such,” he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, “Science has shown such and such,” you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?”
It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown.” And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments—but be patient and listen to all the evidence—to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.[1] [2]
Feynman suggests that people are free to independently verify purported scientific knowledge. Do not trust every expert, he cautions—verify the information yourself. Clearly, we do not have enough time to check everything, but we need to understand that when we have not checked, we are not dealing with science, but information which may or may not be authoritative. It is another person’s interpretation of what the science is. This is not science, it is an opinion, and a subjective one at that. Feynman enjoins that “[i]t is necessary to teach both to accept and to reject the past with a kind of balance that takes some considerable skill.” In short, Feynman tells us, check the science when you can. When you cannot, understand that you are on more dangerous territory and need to appraise what you are being told in a balanced way.
Feynman adds that going through the motions of “scientific processes” might look like science, but it is not science. He explained what he meant in another lecture.[3] Any science that is not underpinned by utter honesty to fellow scientists and laymen about all aspects of the scientific question lacks scientific integrity. All relevant information must be provided by the scientist, including about weaknesses, so that others can reliably evaluate the contribution, and repeat the study if necessary. Feynman noted that there are temptations to provide only part of the information, or perform part of the experiment, or to primarily seek “results” rather than truth, for reasons relating to funding, organizational issues and so forth. But he concluded that those who only provide part of the information are more akin to advertisers or public relations experts than scientists.
Feynman’s concept is tantamount to a demarcation principle for science which helps to distinguish science from non-science. If science lacks integrity and utter honesty it is not science. Instead, it is pseudoscience.
This observation makes sense in a variety of contexts, because honesty and integrity underpin all sorts of human endeavors. Take as an example a chartered accountant who is employed by a large accounting firm of considerable repute. As this professional taps away at his accounting spreadsheets, any observer would be entitled to assume that the accountant was practicing “accounting.” But what if the observer was told that this accountant was corrupt and was engaged in “cooking the books” on behalf of his clients—perhaps deliberately misreporting accounting data to illegally reduce a tax liability? Under these circumstances, is the person engaged in “accounting”? At best, it would amount to “fraudulent accounting”—but arguably, fraudulent accounting is not accounting at all. Feynman points out that the same principle applies to “science”. In the absence of complete honesty, or full reporting of data, including the limitations of the data or experimental results, research lacks integrity and therefore is not science. Perhaps it is “fraudulent science”, or perhaps it is propaganda.
In approaching the origins debate, laypeople would do well to bear Feynman’s critique in mind as they consume science journalism. As we saw in the previous chapter, forensic science can be susceptible to political influence. And in origins science, a branch of forensic science with far-reaching societal implications, the temptation to conceal or misrepresent scientific data is ever present. And what of the typically one-sided portrayal of origins science in the media today? Feynman made an observation which seems directly relevant:
I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television—words, books, and so on—are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.[4]
Feynman was saying that a lot of what passes as science in the mainstream media is not science, and that the prestige of science is misused by some to bludgeon and attack those with whom they disagree. Feynman distrusted experts because expertise is an appeal to authority rather than an appeal to scientific evidence. Feynman would have almost certainly disagreed that science represents a new magisterium and would probably have viewed such a notion as anti-science and tyrannical.
Stephen Jay Gould said something analogous to Feynman in relation to the teaching of science in schools. He admitted that scientists frequently exhibit elitist and dogmatic attitudes:
It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us…We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood. It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities.[5]
Gould further acknowledged that top-down centralized imposition of school curricula was insulting to communities, which deserved to have local input.
Feynman rejected any dogmatic and elitist science (which Gould described) as non-science. Both Feynman’s and Gould’s statements can be interpreted as suggesting that certain institutions were riding roughshod over democracy and misusing the term “science” to advance their agenda. This propagandistic use of the term “science” only works because the public at large is not clear on what science is.
In the origins debate, Feynman’s philosophical approach to science is directly applicable to the statement we introduced in the last chapter: “Science has disproved God.” We hear Feynman’s response: “Science doesn’t teach anything … How does science disprove God? How? What? Where?” These are fair questions. The answer is that the God of the Bible, an immaterial spirit, is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Science cannot disprove the existence of God because it lacks the means to detect Him.
We now turn to two philosophies which analyze the process and progress of science.
[1] The principle that Feynman is discussing is exactly analogous to the biblical principle mentioned by the apostle Paul when he praised the Bereans for checking what he said by comparing it with the scriptures. In effect Paul was saying that teaching authority can only be established by careful comparison against the Bible and a weighing of evidence—there is no infallible teaching authority in any given church simply because it proclaims there to be. We must check what ministers of the church tell us by comparing it with the words of scripture (“but be patient and listen to all the evidence,” as Feynman said). In a sense, the Bible is our magisterium.
[2] Feynman, 2023.
[3] Feynman, 1974.
[4] Feynman, 2023.
[5] Gould, 1994.