A Matter of Fact
To learn about “know a fact”, let’s eavesdrop on a conversation between George and Fred.
George: I dunno! If I can’t see the logic of it—if you can’t even explain it to me, how can I believe it? Am I just supposed to take your word for it?
​
​
Fred: Yeah, it is a bit like asking you to trust a snake charmer or used car salesman, huh? But you don’t need to take my word, there are many people who have had the same experience.
George: So they claim. But you must admit that by your own admission you cannot tell me what a mystical awakening experience is like. And neither can any other mystics. I mean, at least a scientist has rigorous methods and can quantify his results in such a way that they are repeatable.
Fred: So it would seem. Let’s see, OK? Let’s take a statement from Wikipedia and test it. Here is something on “gene”: “Colloquially, the term gene is often used to refer to an inheritable trait which is usually accompanied by a phenotype as in ("tall genes" or
"bad genes") -- the proper scientific term for this is allele.” It goes on to say, “In cells, genes consist of a long strand of DNA that contains a promoter, which controls the activity of a gene, and coding and non-coding sequence.” So genes exist inside a cell as a strand of DNA, and they determine, what?: the characteristics of the organism in which they occur. Would you agree with that?
George: Sure, that’s basically my understanding of what genes are.
Fred: Why?
George: Why what?
Fred: Why is that your understanding? Because it says so in Wikipedia?
George: Well, it’s pretty well common knowledge. Scientists have sequenced the human genes. They even know for certain cases which genes control which traits.
Fred: How did you come by this information? Have you personally ever seen a gene?
George: No. I think you need an electron microscope to see one. They’re pretty tiny. No, I read articles. You know, Smithsonian, the Discovery Channel. Hey, I try to keep up.
Fred: So you basically accept the word of authority? Sometimes even third hand.
George: Yeah, I suppose I do. But these guys are very careful. They keep an eye on one another. Their opinions or experimental findings are open to peer review before they are ever published. And, as I said, their experiments must be repeatable to be accepted. It can’t be just one guy’s opinion. Besides, the proof is in the pudding. Their discoveries generally have practical application. Genetically engineered medication is a well-established field; so, is DNA identification of criminals.
Fred: Can you verify their findings by repeating their experiments?
George: Lord, no! It takes years of training and practice to be able to understand and perform the science.
Fred: So again you are taking it on the voice of authority that the science is valid. Can you read their papers and journals to directly understand their work in detail?
George: No, Most of it is abstracted into mathematics, and what isn’t is full of jargon and terminology that is only learned through study and working in the field. No, but, fortunately, there are writers who are able to put the concepts—well not all the details, but the basic concepts—into everyday English.
Fred: So, let me see if I understand. There is a small band of highly trained individuals who practice their skills and can only communicate the details to one-another. When they work with the lay public they must—in essence—dumb-down their findings to make them understandable and interesting. Is that about right?
George: Yeah, I suppose so.
Fred: And their discoveries come through a practice that is repeatable—hence verifiable.
George: Verifiability is the key. If the results of an experiment cannot be independently repeated, the results are discounted.
Fred: Good. We wouldn’t want someone claiming cold fusion or some such bull. But only to those who have the training and experience can repeat the experiment.
George: Sure, but there are a lot of them. And besides, each experiment’s results usually lead to new experiments and new results and over the years mother nature exposes herself more and more and we come to understand reality—the things we live with and see every day—more and more. It’s called progress. You wouldn’t even be here today without it. It’s too far from your house to mine to make the journey without a car and still have enough energy to talk. And boy you like to talk.
Fred: I’m sorry, George. I’ve been frustrated with my inability to make a certain point clear, and I’m trying to wrestle through ways to explain myself. Would you like to walk over to Peet’s and get a coffee?
George: No, no, no…I’m good for now. I want to see where you are going with all this. What point is it you are trying to make clear?
Fred: OK. Let’s look again to Wikipedia. Here’s a statement: “In 2012 biotech firm Amgen was able to reproduce just six of 53 important studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, successfully repeated only one fourth of 67 important papers.” So, if there are all these published results that later could not be replicated, how do you know what to believe?
George: Well, I guess you just have to wait until the dust settles…until enough time has passed for other scientists to look into it.
Fred: But you must agree that the findings of science should be stated in terms of probability, rather than certainty.
George: Whoa. If scientists can only probably be correct, who, in God’s name, can ever be certain of anything?
Fred: That’s the point that I am trying to make clear. We cannot prove or know anything for certain. You just mentioned God. Do you believe God created all of us and everything?
George: I’m no creationist. I believe in evolution. But some One or some Thing had to get the big bang started.
Fred: What if I suggested that it was all created just 10 seconds ago?
George: Come on. There’s tons of evidence to disprove that. There’s carbon dating, dinosaur bones, human remains, geological evidence galore.
Fred: Isn’t it possible that an omnipotent entity in creating the universe and everything in it could be clever enough to, simultaneously, provide evidence among the creation sufficient to fool our poor brains into concluding that the reality has been in existence for billions of years. How would we ever know?
George: Damn, you sure know how to jerk the rug from under a guy. How am I supposed to know anything?
Fred: That’s the point that I am trying to make clear. All of your dealings with reality turn out to be a mystical experience if you dig deep enough. You know nothing for certain. You just accept it on faith.