The Concept of Proof (part 2)

Now, for the payoff of our discussion in part one of the Concept of Proof. While many may hate to hear this, judging by the criteria outlined there, the theory of evolution and the big bang theory do quite well. In fact, as the philosopher Daniel Dennett puts it "evolution is about as well established as the fact that water is H2O." This doesn't mean that the theory isn't open to revision. But, all available evidence seems to point in favor of it. A similar statement could be made about the big bang theory again, with the proviso, "at this time." So far as we know now. This will always be the case for any theory in science. As Karl Popper pointed out, "the demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative forever."


So, why do people find this a hard pill to swallow about the theories I mentioned above. I suspect it's because they do not know about them and based on this lack of knowledge they conclude that these theories do damage to some of their cherished beliefs. No book has been more reviled since its publication that Darwin's Origin of Species. But, I suspect no book has been left unread as often! Scientists have no problem with entertaining objections to their theories, but the objections should be based on some knowledge of the theory. I cannot devote myself here to explaining in sufficient detail the theories I'm addressing though I could if put to the test. But that is not the point of this essay.


My point, as a philosopher, is to encourage learning and inquiry. But first comes the learning. To be sure, philosophers are all too willing to subject other philosophers to criticism. But they do so from the standpoint of understanding their opponent's theory. We owe the same to any theory be it in philosophy, theology, or science. It does no good to criticize or dismiss a theory out of hand without a thorough understanding of what the theory says and what phenomena it is attempting to explain.


Many say they do not believe in the theory of evolution or the big bang. But the word "believe," like the word "proof," is being misused here. A theory is not something to be believed or disbelieved. The question is whether the evidence warrants our tentative acceptance of the theory. Does the theory do what it claims to do? That is, does it provide us with an adequate explanation of the evidence at hand? If so, it's a good theory. You are certainly free to think otherwise but this doesn't change the fact that the theory is supported by the evidence.
Of course any theory may turn out to be wrong but as David Hume said "the wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." If the evidence warrants it, the theory should be accepted.



This does not amount to conceding everything to the world of science because there are many questions science cannot answer. These include questions of value and meaning such as:


Does my life have a purpose?

Does the universe's existence have a purpose?

Is abortion immoral?

Is it ever right to lie?


Here is where the value of philosophy lies because it is philosophy that attempts to examine these questions and reason to useful answers. Not necessarily definitive answers. There may be no definitive answers to these questions. But, we can examine them in the light of reason and come to some interesting conclusions. But, these conclusions can be furthered by the work scientists do as they attempt to explain the natural world in which we live. After all, asking about the purpose of our lives is a question that can be dealt with much better if we have some understanding of life. To ask whether the universe's existence has a purpose can be answered in a clearer way if we have some understanding of the universe itself. It is misguided to reject the information that science gives us which may pertain to these and other questions. The scientific method is, after all, the most reliable means we have of gaining information about the natural world. Information, without which, we would not be able to philosophize with any sophistication at all.


Finally, don't accept the conclusion of an argument just because you like it and don't reject the conclusion just because you dislike it. In each case, you need to consider the reasoning used and determine whether the conclusion is supported by the premises and whether the premises are true. Wanting something to be true does not make it true and wanting something to be false does not make it false. The questions we examine can be difficult questions but applying the rules of reason can make our job of evaluating philosophical arguments easier and more fruitful.