Truth and Error in Science the Relationship

Truth and Error in Science

The relationship between reason, truth, and belief is one of the central questions of the philosophy of science, and has been addressed by nearly all of the major scientific thinkers. In 1880, the famous scientific thinker and professor Thomas Huxley claimed that "irrationally held truths may be more harmful [to science] than reasoned errors" (qtd. In Bridges, 93). This claim gets to the heart of problems not only with the scientific method but also with human reason in general.

In order to understand what Huxley meant by this assertion, we must understand the context in which he wrote it. This claim was made in an essay written about the future of Darwin's evolutionary theory. Huxley had long been a strong supporter and defender of Darwin's work, so much so that he was known as "Darwin's bulldog" (UCMP site). However, even Huxley's commitment to Darwinism did not stop him from worrying that evolutionary theory would become too firmly entrenched as a biological principle, and would no longer be approached with scientific skepticism. While he firmly believed in its truth, Huxley did not want evolutionary theory to become an "irrationally held truth" -- that is, simply accepted by future generations without any critical questioning. This was dangerous, Huxley said, because "the essence of the scientific spirit is criticism" and "the scientific spirit is more valuable than its products" (Bridges, 94). For Huxley, it was more important to apply reason to all situations, even if that reason leads you to a faulty conclusion, rather than accepting anything without question.

Huxley was living and writing during a time when the questioning of scientific principles had led to major breakthroughs, not only in biology but also in physics and chemistry. The practical implications of many of these breakthroughs -- the widespread use of electricity, for instance -- were not yet developed, and so it would make sense that Huxley would consider the "spirit" of science more important than its products. But a counterargument to Huxley's philosophy can be made, and many of the industrial advancements of the 20th century were made because people took the opposite approach.

While Huxley makes a point that the most important principle of science is the principle of questioning, he does not address the fact that if everyone were to agree with him, no scientific progress could be made at all. Fundamental principles can and should be questioned often, but at some point they have to be accepted so that conclusions can be drawn from them and science can be advanced. Even the scientific method itself contains a balance of both approaches in its combination of induction and deduction. Deduction says that the only valid path to a correct conclusion is the application of reason to general principles. Those general principles have to come from somewhere, however, and induction is the process that allows us to look at a body of evidence and at some point make a generalization that we assume to be true -- an act that would go against Huxley's philosophy (Sarkar et al., 381).