Why is science so successful at explaining the world and allowing us to manipulate it to our advantage?
The first problem is pinning down exactly what distinguishes science from non-science. For one thing the term is misappropriated by the likes of Christian
Science, Creation
Science,
Scientology and a host of others. And for another, it turns out to be almost impossible to characterise the differences between science and the rest anyway.
Even the popular champion of the scientific approach and scourge of religious fundamentalism,
Richard Dawkins, struggles to define the distinction. Dawkins' position must appear to a lay observer to be just as dogmatic as those he seeks to debunk and hence not 'scientific'. And this is counterproductive as there clearly is something that sets science apart in its ability to discern the truth.
So it was a happy find when The Impressionist came across a book called
What is this thing called Science? by A.F.Chalmers in which he attempts to identify what distinguishes Science. Various characterisations of science and the scientific method have been touted around and it takes Dr. Chalmers about 250 pages to examine these in detail and develop his criticisms.
This is a worthy task: if only to allow the scientific establishment to waste less time defending itself against charlatans.
In 100000 words give or take, we get slightly closer to seeing what it is that scientists all understand but can't articulate -
what it is that they are doing.
The great mathematical physicist Paul Dirac once said to someone who asked him a question about one of his theories «if you aren't a mathematician, I can't explain it to you. And if you are, I shouldn't need to». Dirac was famously terse - to the point of being blunt - but it's easy to see his point that understanding (of anything) is something you can only 'get' - not be told.
If the book is the mainstay of reason, then the blog has emerged as the textual equivalent of the 3 minute song, tailored to the attention span of the average radio listener. A typical blog item is short and covers a single - and usually trivial - point. As with the radio and the capacity of Edison's gramophone, there are some technological and ergonomic reasons for this. And today's internet is an inherently noisy place - a library with market traders in every aisle.
The blogger feels under pressure to keep it short and sweet as he assumes that the bulk of his or her readers will not bother to follow the finer points of a difficult and protracted discussion. And being popular is, of course, everything. Which all goes to make it difficult to tackle anything even approaching the complexity of a single chapter, let alone a 250 page book.
So difficult areas of discourse are not addressed online, and for the same sort of reasons that they are seldom tackled in newspapers or periodicals. This removes them from the attention of the man in the street and that is bad for everyone.
When it comes to reasoned argument in a complex issue, the good old book is still the only real choice.
And there's the advantage that it will survive the next version of Windows.