Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
themselves and that they want to signal to us. A much simpler interpretation, that
is one with fewer assumptions, is that this is just an accidental effect of the angle
of sunlight that happens to remind us of a face. We humans are programmed to
recognise faces. Some people see faces in clouds, fires, teacups and items of pastry!
The picture shown in Fig. 2.4b was taken in 1998 by the Global Surveyor space-
craft when the angle of illumination of the same region was different, and it clearly
supports the simpler interpretation. But let's be honest - the simpler interpretation
is also more boring! The reason that conspiracy theories are so popular is that they
are often more interesting than real life.
Now it is important to grasp that Occam's razor does not say that you should
prefer the simplest hypothesis because it is more likely to be correct - there is
no
apriori
reason why Nature should be simple. What Occam's razor says is that
you should prefer the simplest hypothesis because it is the best way to proceed.
So
William is defining a method - an essential part of the scientific method. It is one of
the ironies of history that William did not apply his razor to his religious beliefs.
I cannot overemphasise the importance of Occam's razor to the practice of sci-
ence. If you abandon this principle, you might as well believe any interpretation of
the world that you find comforting and appealing - and many people do. It is prob-
ably because of Occam's razor that the majority of leading scientists today are not
supernaturalists, because postulating invisible active agents clearly requires more
assumptions than does the naturalistic view that such agents do not exist. Let us
now look at some of the evidence about religious belief amongst scientists.
Religious Belief amongst Leading Scientists
A survey of the incidence of religious belief among leading American scientists
was published in the journal
Nature
in 1998, and Fig. 2.5 compares it with similar
surveys in 1914 and 1933. The response rate in the 1998 survey of members of the
US National Academy of Sciences was about 50%.
Fig. 2.5
