In the last year or two I have come across two scientists who approach their discipline with the same evangelical zeal as the most enthusiastic Christian convert:  Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Science (both of which should be on everyones reading list).  Each have their ‘enemy’ they have set their sites on.  For Dawkins it is anyone who believes in any sort of supernatural beings (or imaginary friends as he calls them) and for Goldacre it is alternative medicine.  Each set out their reasons for their chosen target.  For Dawkins there is an army of anti-evolutionists who are posed to take the scientific community by force.  For Goldacre it is the alternative medicine business that is trying to squeeze every last penny out of the unwell and the scared threatening to overthrow tried and tested medicine with charlatonism.

I have great sympathy for both scientists.  Religion has long stood in the way of the progression of thought,  from Medieval and Renaissance attempts to suppress classical literature incompatible with contemporary theology, through to persecution of Galileo to modern creationists trying to dictate scientific curriculum and suppress knowledge of evolution.  Alternative medicine too has a lot to answer for.  Snake oils, miracle cures, super-foods and breakthrough diets have made  callous people their fortunes with little or no thought to other people’s well being.  At best people have wasted their money on sugar pills, at worst they have done themselves serious damage by taking dangerous substance that haven’t been properly tested.  Religion and alternative medicines have a lot to answer for.

But then science isn’t without blame either.  Whether it is thalidomide given to mothers in the 1960s,  ecological distasters, or eugenics, science has made its share of blunders over the past and continues to do so.  Both Dawkins and Goldacre make bold statements about the veracity of the scientific method.  Quite rightfully they demonstrate how this method uses peer review, hypothesis and experimentation to ensure that any statement, any theory, can be examined, verified or refuted.  But even with this method, science still makes mistakes,  and science has still left us with a lot of unanswered questions.  Like many I am sure that over time science will continue to answer most of these questions; I would be surprised if there comes a point when there are no more answers to find.  Neither science nor the scientific method can account for the limitation of the human mind.  Even geniuses like Einstein or Newton still only ever managed to achieve glimpses into all that is out there.  And while the big bang theory demonstrate how the universe formed, and evolution may demonstrate how we formed, neither help to explain how it is we got here in the first place or what happens once the big bang has expanded as far as it can expand.

What both Dawkins, in regards to evolution, and Goldacre, in regards to alternative medicine fail to account for is how we live with the scientific method in our daily lives.  Fine analytical minds may content themselves with evolution as an explanation to our existence or may simply be able to accept that there is nothing more the doctors can do, but not everyone has an analytical mind and sometimes the best decision aren’t based on scientific fact or reasoned thinking.  Often instinct, lucky guesses, and intuition have better outcomes that the collected wisdom of academics.  Indeed,  most corporate leaders and visionaries do so without any academic training at all.  While the bureaucracies of most companies are run by MBAs and the well qualified, the brains at the top are usually the uneducated.

This is the problem with science.  Its meticulous attention to details means it is a great system for building bridges, but this meticulous attention leads to a myopism that makes it most unsuited for many of the most important decision we have to make and renders it unsuited to explain some of the greatest tragedies and most elating joys that befall us.  It also for this reason that when a loved one dies from a disease that cannot be cured or totally random accident, when we see people starving and dying just because no one can find a way of feeding them, there is no comfort to be found in the cold myopic facts of science, but it is to song and art and stories and Gods and ritual that we turn to.  While Dawkins may have great scientific reasons for refusing to accept the existence of God he fails also to accept that there is any good reason why anyone else should.  Indeed, anyone who does not agree with Dawkins view that God does not exist is dismissed by Dawkins as deluded for believing in an imaginary friend.  While Dawkins has demonstrated quite successfully that there is no scientific proof that God does exist, he cannot prove that God does not.  Indeed, how can anyone prove that God does not exist or that God does not love us without first defining precisely what God is, then defining what love is.  Even the best theological or philosophical minds cannot do that!  Goldacre will at least allow for the scientific evidence of the placebo affect to explain the perceived success of some alternative medicines, but what he fails to address is what medical science can do to address the problems people have with their care (often having as much do with bedside manner as the cures themselves).  It will take more than just new and more effective cures to restore many people’s faith in modern medicine.  Medicine needs to learn that you have to treat more than the disease itself, and that is something the scientific method cannot account for.  Until the Dawkins and Goldacres of the world appreciate the importance and the place of the non-scientific, they will find themselves polarized and isolated in a very logical, but very lonely, world.  While the scientific method is great for its veracity, it often falls short on usability.