Science and unsolvability

"Mathematics may not teach us how to add love or how to subtract hate.
But it gives us every reason to hope that every problem has a solution."
     -Twitter.com search for "math"

Google Image Search for
"hippie math."**

Aside from the overly-saccharine tone of the quote, the major problem is that it expresses a major misconception about mathematics and the other sciences.  This is, of course, the idea that every scientific problem has a solution.

An overly-simplistic definition of science might be: a discipline that attempts to solve questions about the natural world.  Scientists have, in large part, been very successful at this pursuit.  Since humanity's first attempt at explaining the universe (religion), we now have explanations that are logical, evidence-based, and falsifiable.  But, the idea that most problems are solved, or even solvable, is a fallacy. 

To wit: any biologist has to admit that they do not have a solid definition for the word "species."  By "solid," I simply mean a definition that would enable someone to correctly partition the various Kingdoms into their correct species-components.  And they certainly have no idea how life started on the planet.  This last point is important, because it is frequently attacked as a weakness.  It is not.  Any self-respecting scientist will proudly admit they do not know how life began and claim that the god hypothesis of genesis is a bad one.  This applies to both theistic and atheistic scientists.  Once someone claims to have all of the answers, that person stops being a scientist and starts being a preacher.

The question of how life arose on Earth may, in fact, be unsolvable; one has a difficult time imagining what sort of evidence should be sought out.  And scientists as prestigious as Richard Dawkins freely admit that there are no means of proving that we are not brains in jars.  Similarly, it is impossible to know what happened before the big bang.  By virtue of living in this universe, after the big bang, all of humanity's means of testing data before the big bang are void.

Clearly, he was on
the borderline

Whether or not questions like those are unsolvable, they are still firmly within the realm of science.  Scientists can and should continue to propose falsifiable answers to these questions and seek to falsify their colleagues' hypotheses.  A proper, scientific attitude is equal parts boldness and humility.  It takes boldness to approach the scientific community and offer your explanations to the world.  On the other hand, it takes great humility to accept when your ideas are no longer viable.  

Science is filled with stories of people who had too much boldness and not enough humility.  This results in people who are too attached to their ideas to let go in the face of overwhelming evidence.  However, as Matt Ridley points out, these people are most likely to become the famous scientists.  This class of scientists is the home of Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein.  Unfortunately, the distinction is very thin.  Are the prevailing explanations really missing that last piece of the puzzle, or are you simply ignoring evidence to fit your view of things?

In any case, the real takeaway here is that the hope we should get from science is not that every question has an answer.  Nor is it a hope that, if someone tries really hard, he/she can be the next Einstein.  It's the idea that, with enough courage and humility, we can tell future generations: "Here's the best we could do, given the tools we had.  We are 90% sure about X and only 50% sure about Y.  We hope you can do better."  It's the hope that as a community and throughout the lifetime of our species, we might be able to explain nearly everything.  And the big joke of it all is that we might be able to do this in spite of our primate brains, which were and are the end product of selection process that only selected for the ability to : 1) successfully flee from predators, 2) hunt and eat the most prey possible, and 3) enjoy sex as much as possible.