From a children’s tale to Socrates and the Qur’an, the need for logic and sound reasoning is universal.

Nasraddin Hodja is a well-known folktale character in the Middle East. He is famous for his wit, which is apparent in the wisdom-filled stories that have been ascribed to him for eight centuries. Although Hodja was not a philosopher, many of his tales contain elements that demonstrate philosophical concepts and principles. As an example, the story of Hodja’s pot neatly exercises a fundamental philosophical method, i.e. the Socratic method or reductio ad absurdum. This story, though apparently simple and funny, has a deep philosophical dimension and teaches us the Socratic method in a very accessible way. The story goes as follows:

One day, Nasraddin Hodja borrowed a pot from his neighbor. After he had finished using it, he took it back to the neighbor with a smaller pot put inside it.
When the neighbor saw the smaller pot, he was surprised.


“What is that?” he asked.


“Well, said  Hodja, when I borrowed your pot it was pregnant and it gave birth.”


The man smiled and accepted both pots.

A few days later, Hodja borrowed the pot again but this time he did not return it.
The neighbor was rather cross. He went to Hodja and asked, “What about my pot?”


“I am very sorry,” said Hodja, “but it died.”


“Don’t make jokes with me,” replied the neighbor. “How can a pot die?”


“If you believe that it brought a child into the world,” said Hodja, “why can’t you believe that it died?”
 

In this story, Nasraddin Hodja suggests that his neighbor’s behavior of accepting the smaller pot is improper, by indicating an absurd consequence of his behavior, namely that a pot can die if it can give birth. This method is commonly used in philosophical argumentation since the Ancient Greeks. We can see similar examples in Plato’s dialogues. For example, in the Republic, Cephalus defines justice as speaking the truth and paying the debt. However, Socrates shows that this definition logically leads to some absurd consequences. Let us assume that somebody lends us arms when his mind is right, but wants them back later when he lost his mind. According to Cephalus’ definition of justice, we should give the arms to that insane and crazy person since they are not ours but his. Yet, no one would approve such an act. Once Cephalus encounters this counterexample, he understands that his initial definition has some problems; he approves Socrates’ point and tries to modify his idea of justice. Thus, the dialogue continues. Different definitions are introduced and checked by this method.

We can display the logical structure of the Socratic method in the following way. In a conversation, somebody holds an assumption, and makes a definition or claims something. The other person shows that this assumption, definition, or claim leads to an absurdity. For this reason, this method is also called reductio ad absurdum, i.e. reducing to absurdity. Since the initial assumption leads to something unacceptable, it is unacceptable as well by logical inference. Then the person who held that assumption is forced to abandon or modify it. See Table 1 for a comparison of these examples.

Table 1

The Socratic method is one of the basic methods that we use in reasoning. We use it in daily life, in sciences, and in any area where we engage in rational thinking. The strictest kind of absurdity is a contradiction, i.e. accepting and denying the exactly same thing under the same conditions. Because of this, logicians and mathematicians call the Socratic method, “the indirect proof,” or “proof by contradiction.” See the appendix for an example of the proof by contradiction in mathematics.

Interestingly enough, we also see this method in the holy books. For example, the Qur’an frequently suggests people use their rationality and carefully think about the universe. It is remarkable that, in the Qur’an, we find arguments that rely on the reductio ad absurdum method. For example, let us consider the following verse: “But the fact is that had there been in the heavens and the earth any deities other than God, both (of those realms) would certainly have fallen into ruin. All-Glorified God is, the Lord of the Supreme Throne, in that He is absolutely above all that they attribute to Him” (21:22). This verse proposes that one must have observed disorder in the universe if that person associated partners with God’s activity in the universe. Since this is not what we observe, the initial assumption is incorrect. This example shows that the Qur’an addresses the rationality of human beings, and suggests actively using that faculty.

As we have seen, deriving absurd consequences from an assumption and denying it on the basis of those absurdities is a common and fundamental way of reasoning that is exercised in many different areas and aspects of human life. It is called by different names over history, namely “the Socratic method,” “reductio ad absurdum,” or “proof by contradiction.” Yet, the basic idea behind these technical terms is the same. Most of us probably exercise this method without thinking about it.

Appendix

Theorem: The number that is equal to itself, when added to itself, is zero.

Prove that for any x, x is a number; if x +x = x, then x=0.

1. x+x=x (assumption for conditional/direct proof)
2. x is not equal to 0. (Assumption for indirect proof/reductio ad absurdum)
3. x+x=2x (by addition)
4. x=2x (since “x+x” is common for both the 1^st and 3^rd steps, by the principle of transitivity)
5. 1=2 (cancel x’s) –Contradiction
6. x=0. (The assumption that leads to the contradiction in the 5^th step must be false. Therefore, it is false that x is not equal to 0. Thus, x=0 is true.) Indirect proof is complete.
7. If x+x=x, then x=0. (Conditional proof is complete)

A question can be defined as any sentence that has an interrogative form or function (Cotton 1988). Asking and answering questions are among the most common human behaviors we experience in many different areas of our lives (Samson, Syrowsky, Weinstein, & Walberg 1987). For instance, as mentioned in Sahin and Kulm (2008)’s study, questions have been used for many purposes such as provoking students and making them listen carefully, analyzing their thoughts and thinking critically. Moreover, the questioning method serves to initiate discussion and review material. Unsurprisingly, research has found that classroom talks are dominated by teachers’ questions (Redfield & Rousseau 1981). Indeed, teachers use anywhere from 35 to 50 percent of their instructional time posing questions (Cotton 1998). Thus questioning is a common and pivotal teaching skill which needs special attention for maximum benefit. Additionally, the type of questions teachers ask and how often these questions are posed to students also needs examining.

Question types

The questioning method has been a well-studied topic in education for centuries because it has been thought to be a good measure of a teacher’s quality (Stevens 1912). Therefore, a number of studies have taken place to examine the types of questions asked by teachers. Even though different categorizations have been set out in various researches, it is possible to see that there are several types of questions studied most and these include: higher-order, open-ended, divergent, evaluative, lower-order, factual, convergent, closed, and procedural questions. But when looked at these questions closely, it is possible to group them under two categories, probing and factual, based on the answers you expect from your students. The first group of categorization might include higher-order, open-ended, divergent, and evaluative question types under probing since all those question types require students to think deeply, provide wider responses, and justify answers. Indeed, Sahin and Kulm (2008) found that probing question was like the first group of question types requiring the following:

• Asking students to explain or elaborate on their thoughts
• Asking students to use prior knowledge and apply it to the current problem or idea
• Asking students to justify or prove their ideas (p. 3).

Examples of probing questions include:

1. How do you know that these fractions, 3/7 and 9/21, are equivalent?
2. Why do you agree with your friend?
3. How do you know that your answer is right?
4. What if you were in his shoes, what would you do to stop him from stealing?
5. If you were the President of the United States, would you liberate Libya? Why or why not?

The second group consists of lower-order, convergent, closed, and procedural questions that require students to recall specific facts and provide short answers. Sahin and Kulm’s (2008) study described indicators of factual questions which was very similar to the second group of questions:

• Asking students for a specific fact or definition (Vacc 1993)
• Asking students for an answer to an exercise
• Asking students to provide the next step in a procedure.

Examples of factual questions include:

1. What is the definition of a ratio?
2. When is the Independence Day of America?
3. What do you get when you divide 16 by 4?
4. Do you agree with him?
5. How many blue chocolate candies do you have in your M&M bag?

In practice, 60 to 80 percent of teachers’ questions are factual and around 20 percent of them are probing questions according to Cotton (1998). So it is important for teachers to be knowledgeable about those questions types.

How to develop questioning skills

Cotton (1998) found that teachers’ questioning method was the second most used teaching skill after lecturing in K-12 education. This is an interesting finding because even though it is used widely in teaching, research shows that teachers receive little training on how to ask, what to ask, and when to ask questions and how much time they need to wait after they pose a question. For instance, Sahin (2011) found that training or workshops on questioning was not a common practice in Texas. Four teachers said that they never took a course or a workshop specifically focusing on questioning and wait time. Interestingly, they said that they still used different questions to teach what they teach. When they were asked how they developed their questioning skills, they attributed it to watching and observing a good teacher as the number one technique to learn how to ask questions.

Another common method to learn how to pose questions is going out in the field and working in a classroom with real teachers and students as described by a middle grades mathematics teacher:

When I was an undergraduate, the time in the classroom, the classroom experience, going out in the field, being in the classroom with actual teachers and helping them out, seeing how they are doing it. You pick up things and you get exposed to different strategies in the classroom. So, I think, having the exposure in the classrooms is very beneficial because you are taught a lot with a lecture at A&M or at any college but real life exposure out in the classrooms with real kids, what kind of questions kids are asking and how they are responding to the questions, I think, is very helpful (Sahin 2011, 39).

Also the importance of workshops on questioning techniques and wait time cannot be ignored since teachers tend to and are encouraged to attend workshops regularly to grow and become better teachers. But Sahin’s findings illustrate that teachers cannot locate a specific workshop on questioning. There was only one teacher who said that she attended a workshop on teachers’ questioning method in her fifteen years of teaching. So, trainings or workshops on different teaching skills should be organized and teachers should be highly encouraged to attend a certain number of professional development workshops each school year.

Wait time

Questions and wait time are two sides of the same coin. As a coin cannot be valid without one of the sides, questioning techniques will not be successful without sufficient wait time. More precisely, you may ask quality and timely questions to your students but it will not extract learning unless you provide them with enough time to absorb and process the question and produce an answer. Cotton (1998), in her review on questioning and wait time, defined wait time as “the amount of time the teacher allows to elapse after he/she has posed a question and before a student begins to speak” (p. 5). Interestingly, research shows that the average wait time teachers allow students to generate response is one second or less (Rowe 1974). Naturally, no one can expect students to understand a question, process it, and formulate a response in such a short period of time.

Increasing a wait time of three or more seconds is an immense improvement for better responses and eventually for more effective student learning. Studies such as Cazden (2001) have revealed that three or more seconds of wait time help students give longer responses, provide better responses with more evidence of learning, further elaboration, encourage more questioning, and added engagement with increased student-to-student and student-to-teacher interactions. This is why it is crucial for teachers to go through trainings to develop proper wait time habits encouraging further student learning.

The use of questioning skills in daily life

Scholars, religious leaders, and/or prophets can be categorized as teachers as well since they are in a position to communicate to people certain things by lecturing, preaching, or posing questions. In that sense, Socrates was not alone in his use of questioning techniques to teach something or convince someone about a misunderstood value. The following story presents an excellent example of a well-constructed questioning method with enough wait time. In the story, Turkish scholar Said Nursi talks about how wrong or exaggerated fear can make one’s life unbearable:

An important man (may God’s mercy be upon him) was afraid to travel by boat. One evening, we went to Galata bridge to take the ferry to Eyup. He did not want to get on, saying that he feared he would drown. When I asked him how many boats were in the Golden Horn, he replied that there might be as many as one thousand. When I asked him how many boats sank each year, he replied usually one or two, and sometimes none. I made this analogy: “Since a year has 365 days, your chance of drowning is 1:365,000. Why does such a small chance scare you?” I asked: “How much longer do you expect to live?” He answered: “Maybe 10 years; I am old already.” I continued: “As there are 3,650 days in 10 years, your chance of dying today is 1:3,650. But since we do not know when we will die, you could die at any time. So repent and weep! Write your last will and testament!” Seeing the truth in my words, he got on the boat even though trembling. (Nursi 2007, 401-2)

In the example, Nursi uses a series of questions to help a person overcome his fear of boarding a boat. In this example, Nursi achieved a couple of things through questioning: first, he asked a series of (factual) questions to help the person determine his underlying beliefs about death. Nursi formulated this information in such a way to show the man how small the possibility of a boat sinking was through a set of factual questions. He posed each question cleverly and effectively to help the person realize how his feelings of death were exaggerated. Also, Nursi gave his addressee enough time to think about the questions, use prior knowledge and apply it to a current problem or situation. He did not rush him to give answers. Moreover, the information Nursi obtained was not something that his addressee did not know, rather it was a tool to help the person overcome his fear of death when boarding a boat. In a short period of time, Nursi persuaded the person that his fear was needless through the use of a questioning technique combined with adequate wait time. As Myhill and Dunkin (2002) stated, “Just like a good barrister, a good teacher knows how to use questions for maximum impact” (p. 8).

In conclusion, teachers’ questioning skills are one of the primary and most influential set of pedagogical skills in use in classrooms. Therefore, teachers should be trained in order for them to become knowledgeable about what to ask and how to ask. Additionally, teachers should know that they should wait at least three seconds after posing a question for more effective student responses and understanding. Teachers’ questioning skills and wait time should complement each other for better outcome. Colleges, districts, and schools should seek ways to improve both prospective and in-service teachers’ questioning skills.

References

• Cazden, C. B. 2001. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Cotton, K. 1998. Classroom questioning. North West Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.learner.org/workshops/socialstudies/pdf/session6/6.ClassroomQuestioning.pdf
• Nursi, Bediüzzaman Said. 2007. The Letters. NJ: Tughra Books.
• Myhill, D., & Dunkin, F. 2002. What is a good question? Literacy, 8.
• Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. 1981. A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Educational Research 51, 237–245.
• Sahin, A. 2011. Teachers’ awareness and acquisition of questioning. (Manuscript submitted for publication).
• Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. 2008. Sixth grade mathematics teachers. Intentions and use of probing, guiding, and factual questions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 221-241
• Samson, G. E., Strykowski, B., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. 1987. The effects of teacher questioning levels on student achievement. Journal of Educational Research 80, 290–295.
• Socrates.(n.d.).Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
• Stevens, R. 1912. The questions as a measure of efficiency in instruction: A critical study of classroom practice, Teachers College Contributions to Education, 48, 95. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.
• Vacc, N. N. 1993. Implementing the professional standards for teaching mathematics: Questioning in the mathematics classroom. Arithmetic Teacher, 41(2), 88–91.

Above all, it should be said that this saying is weak in regard to the hadith criteria. However, there is a verse in the Quran that expresses the same idea: “In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for the people of discernment” (Al Imran 3:190). In one hadith the Messenger of God emphasizes the importance of contemplation: “Whoever reads this verse and does not contemplate on it, shame on him.” In addition, it was reported by Umm Salama and-according to another narration-Aisha, that the Prophet cried when this verse was revealed or when he was reading it.

Contemplation has a very important place in the life of a believer. However, for this to be the case we must understand what contemplation means. First of all, contemplation is based on prior knowledge. Blind and ignorant contemplation is dry imagination and in time it will lead to frustration. Later, a person will begin to see such a practice as meaningless. For this reason, a person must first be familiar with the subject they are going to contemplate or, in other words, they must have some prior information.

Understanding the orbit of the moon and stars, their relation to humanity, the revolution of atoms which make up human beings, and their movement is a step towards contemplation, but looking at the movement of the moon and sun and becoming overwhelmed with poetic inspiration about the mind-boggling beauty of the universe is not contemplation. There are a number of lonely, strange, handicapped naturalist poets who think like this and plunge into their imagination. They are not contemplators; rather they are fanciful people who have lost their hearts to Mephistopheles.

They also can sometimes think and talk about the beauty of the universe. Worldly beauty can be made to be legendary with words, inspiring people to feel and hear the beauties of Heaven. Sometimes poets can write such epics about the splashing of water, the tapping of raindrops, the rustling of trees and the chirping of birds that a person feels as if they are in the middle of the heavens. However, this is not contemplation; moreover, it promises nothing for the life of the heart and spirit. In this way no advances are made and one has not passed behind the veils. There is no benefit from such contemplation. Regardless of how deep the dreams are, such contemplation gains nothing for a person.

As mentioned above, before contemplation it is necessary that there first be some information. In respect to the knowledge humanity has now attained, people will make new syntheses and analyses with the previous knowledge, probing deeper and arriving at different conclusions. Using these conclusions as an introductory basis for future conclusions, new results will be produced. These new results will be contemplated more deeply; one-dimensional thinking will become multi-dimensional and multiple-contemplation will be achieved. All of this is dependent on there being information. It is impossible for people to contemplate without information.

For this reason, it is necessary to do a lot of reading. Later, it is necessary to study the path and method of contemplation and finally the rules that are operative in nature and the signs of creation therein should be studied so that we can create the possibility of steady and sound thinking.

If a person contemplates soundly for one hour, the fundamental principles of faith will develop in that person. Later, that person will love God and a profound love for the divine will appear in their heart. Meanwhile, they will attain spiritual pleasure and take flight towards the beyond. Sometimes with this kind of contemplation a person can reach a horizon that another person has not reached with a thousand years of worship. If one with such an understanding and consciousness does not turn towards their Lord, then even after thinking superficially for a thousand years, the distance they will cover will not equal the distance covered by one hour of contemplation. However, this should not be understood to mean that this one thousand years of worship was in vain. For in God’s presence neither a bow or prostration or standing or a short rest between movements can be lost. In accordance with the verses, “whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it” (Zilzal 99:7–9), everyone will gain something in accordance with their actions. A person who performs worship will have fulfilled their devotion to God. However, they will not have gained the depth that is derived from contemplation. In this sense, contemplation is worth a thousand years of worship.

Everyone can broaden their ability to contemplate with portions of the scripture and remembrance, and they can strengthen their relationship with God. Who knows, maybe because of the enthusiasm that this contemplation will give us we can succeed in renewing ourselves. May God reform us inside and out!

Finally, it is also asked: “Do verses that direct one to contemplation and silent prayer count as contemplation?” If the meaning of these is not understood, then, although one will receive merit for them, they are not contemplation. For contemplation stems from reflection and means bringing together events from yesterday and today, making a synthesis, and establishing a connection between the causes and effects. Strengthening our relationship with God is the most important fruit of this. Any remembrance or verse or, in fact, even listening to the scripture from the mouth of Gabriel himself would be merit, but it is not contemplation. To be considered as contemplation there must be a concentration, focus, a serious investigation and a deepening and strengthening of our relationship with our Lord.

What is most lacking today is contemplation. In this respect, it is not an exaggeration to say that in general believers are deficient in contemplation.

Cryptography mainly aims to save information and to transfer messages to recipients safely. Cryptography can change a message into a complicated form by applying several different methods. Encoded information can be resolved only when the receiver applies specific methods to it. Not only does computer cryptography render communication secure but it also gives users secure access to servers.

Nowadays, cryptography is becoming more and more significant, especially now people transfer their personal, commercial, military or political information to each other on internet. It is easy for someone to get personal information through online shopping sites which are very common today. Therefore, credit card information entered into the website is converted into unintelligible characters through an encryption method so that the credit card number can be transmitted to the server securely. Then, the server can easily retrieve the original form of the credit card number using decryption.

The encryption algorithm includes essential elements known as the “key.” Protection of the key is always vital for information security.

History of Cryptography

To find the first examples of cryptography one needs to go back more than 4,000 years in history. For instance, in 2000 BCE the ancient Egyptians used hieroglyphs on the gravestones of their kings to describe their achievements when they were alive. Eventually, the system of hieroglyphs grew too complex to understand. Then people began to use it for encoding. Similarly, Chinese people used ideography, which conveys ideas through symbols, to hide the meaning of words.

There are also encoding examples from ancient Mesopotamia that have similar aspects to those used in Egypt. The Roman emperor Julius Caesar used a type of encryption technique called the “Caesar cipher” in which each letter in the plain text is replaced by a letter some fixed number of positions down the alphabet. In the Middle Ages cryptography received a lot of attention from many nations, especially in Europe. In recent years, many different methods have been developed in this field. Therefore, the classical methods are not as useful as they were in the past, especially since the 1970s. Today, more complex mathematical methods have replaced the classical methods of cryptography.

The Arabs were the first to make successful studies of how to decode encrypted messages. Ahmad al-Qalqashandi of Egypt (1355–1418) developed an encryption method which is still used today. This technique is based on a theory of language stability which explores the distribution and frequency of the words in a text. With this method, the frequency of the characters within the encrypted text is compared to the frequency standards in the language; in this way, it is determined what an encoded letter really stands for.

This method is used successfully in decoding messages encrypted by the mono-alphabetic method, which is based on sliding or replacement of a letter by another one.

In 1931, the French obtained documents from a German spy which showed the functions of a code named “Enigma” that was going to be used in World War II by the Germans. British mathematicians were then able to decipher the code during the war. Thus, the commands of Hitler could be learned immediately by the Allied Powers. The Allied countries won the war because of their access to the decryption technique. Likewise, the American army gained victory over the Japanese in the Pacific War in the 1940s because American decryption experts, along with their British and Dutch colleagues, were able to decode the system called JN-25 which was being used by the Japanese army.

Technological developments in computer science have enabled us to decode even previously unbreakable ciphers. For instance, an encrypted message which was created in 1977 and which, it was thought could be decoded only 40 quadrillion years later with the help of an algorithm that analyses the known large numbers into their factors, was actually decoded seventeen years later in 1994.

Classical and modern cryptography

Cryptographic methods are divided into two categories: classical and modern. In the classical method, encoding can be done by consistent replacement of a letter by another letter in the same alphabet. For example, if we replace each letter in the word FOUNTAIN by the third following letter it changes into IRXQWDLQ. It can also be done by replacement of a word with another one or replacement of a character by another character. Of course, the recipient of the message must be the only person who knows the decryption method. In that way, for example, the unintelligible word above can easily be changed back to its original form by replacing each word by the letter three places before it in the alphabet. Such encrypted messages can only be decoded by linguistic analyses or after numerous trials. The classical method was invented hundred of years ago, and it has been used since then. Although this method is so simple that it can even be used manually, computers are the only devices which can have maximum security as well as very long keys and complex algorithms for the modern technique.

The “Spartan cylinder” is another device used in the classical method. A message is written on a piece of paper rolled around a cylinder with a known diameter. The encrypted message is then detached from the cylinder and sent. The only way to decipher the message is to have a cylinder of the same diameter. If the unrolled paper is re-rolled around a decoding cylinder properly, then the original message is obtained. This method is known to have been used by the Spartans around 600 BCE.

One modern method is called Public-Key Cryptography. In this form of cryptography, the key used to encrypt a message differs from the key used to decrypt it. The public key may be widely distributed while the private key is kept secret. Thus, incoming messages are encrypted with the recipient’s public key; yet, they cannot be decrypted except with the recipient’s private key. Hence, the possessor of the private key is the only one who can decrypt the message and read it.

Conversely, in secret-key cryptography, a single secret key is used for both encryption and decryption. One disadvantage of secret-key cryptography is the distribution of the private key since it is always at risk of being acquired by third parties.

If we look at the universe, we can observe similar cryptographic methods in every creation process. For instance, living cells produce protein by deciphering nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), which include encoded genetic information in ribosomes.

The structure of encoded DNA and encryption in protein synthesis

There is divine wisdom in the encoding of DNA and the transference of these codes to ribosomes in the protein-making process. If we compare DNA molecules, which contain the genetic instructions inside living organisms, to a book, the letters in this book can be symbolized by A, T, and G and C. These symbols represent four molecules which are used in the encoding of the genetic program that shapes the basic form of all living organisms. Each human genome is identified with different sums of those letters. For instance, while the sum of genomic letters is approximately 3 billion in mice and human organisms; it is about 4–5 million in a bacteria. Furthermore, when the genome sequences of two humans are compared, the combination difference between the two appears to be only one percent; nevertheless, no human being is exactly like another in appearance.

There are some interesting distinctions between humans and animals in terms of their genome numbers. The various encoding techniques used in DNA are a basic biological mechanism which can also be considered the mystery behind the genetic diversity in the creation of living organisms. If we compare the genome to a program booklet, we can consider the booklet to be a tiny model of the “Manifest Record” (Imam al-Mubin) mentioned in the Qur’an, in which the future lives of all things and beings, including all the principles governing those lives, and all their deeds and the reasons or causes are kept pre-recorded in this world. The instructions and mechanism used in this encoding program are identical in most living beings. This uniformity shows that they are all created by one Almighty being.

Scientists also observe another kind of encoding which helps transmission of the right message to ribosomes during the protein-making process. The main idea is that unlike the base-pairing of DNA, in messenger RNA (mRNA) the complementary base to adenine is not thymine, as it is in DNA, but rather Uracil, and also that every three nucleotides (a codon) carry information of one amino acid. For example, while codons in DNA appear as “AAT, GCC, GAT, GTA,” they appear as “UUA, CGG, CUA, CAU” in mRNA. Here the main goal is not to keep the information safe against the third parties as in normal encryption, but rather to transmit the message properly and preserve the diversity of living beings.

Developments in the area of cryptography do not only provide confidentiality of information, but they also shed light on our understanding of God’s wonderful creation in the world of living creatures. All these extensive and essential practices, including the encoding of the information by the four letters of DNA, proper transmission of this encoded information to the cells, and the necessary synthesis in the cell, prove that the All-Knowing and Omnipotent God has great wisdom in all His actions in the Universe.

References

• Protein Synthesis, http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPROTSYn.html.
• Selim Aydın, “Gen Haritası Neler Söylüyor?”, Sızıntı, June 2001, no. 269.
• Quantum Cryptography: Privacy Through Uncertainty, October 2002 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/crypt/overview.php 1.5.2006.
• Larry Petterson, Bruce S. Davie, Computer Networks: A System Approach, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2000, 568–615.

The author describes Ibn al-Haytham’s life in chronological order, with the last chapter concentrating on the occurrences after his death and how his contributions were inherited by especially Western scientists. He starts the book by describing the environment in and around Basra, a city in the south of what is now Iraq, where Ibn al-Haytham was born in 965 AD. After narrating the story of the spread of Islam in the region, the author indicates that the Muslims showed great interest in the knowledge of their subjects:

“The thirst for knowledge was partly from the religious philosophy of Islam. The Qur’an says: ‘Those who remember Allah [God]…reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth.’ Prophet Muhammad says: ‘Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim.’”

The first chapter “Boyhood in Basra” continues with Muslims’ interest in the writings of ancient Greeks, especially Caliph al-Ma’mun and his founding of Bait-ul-Hikmat, or the “House of Wisdom,” a center dedicated to the study and translation of books. The author notes the fact that Muslims did not merely collect and translate the works of other cultures, but absorbed the material and added to it, making it their own. He adds, “This was true not only in literature, but also in science and mathematics. Muslim advances in these areas changed the course of human history.” The mathematical breakthrough of the invention of the number zero by al-Khwarizmi and Abu Kamil’s contributions to advanced algebra are mentioned.

The first chapter ends with a description of the education system in the 10th century Middle East. Many books, translations and original works, found their place in libraries, sometimes attached to mosques. Ibn al-Haytham’s early education took place at the mosque of Basra. The tradition was that every teacher would take up a position by a pillar while the students sat on the floor in a semicircle around him. Munazarah, or debates, were required of every student, where students were posed controversial and difficult questions. The winner was determined according to the thoroughness of the student’s answer and soundness of his logic. Some teachers required students to produce copies of the books, as books were difficult to reproduce. While in the mosques religion, literature, grammar, and rhetoric were taught, the sciences were taught generally in the private homes of amateur scholars. Ibn al-Haytham first studied theology, Qur’an, Hadith (a collection of Prophet Muhammad’s sayings), and law.

The author quotes Ibn al-Haytham explaining why he was inspired to study philosophy and science: “I decided to discover what it is that brings us closer to God, what pleases Him most, and what makes us submissive to His ineluctable Will.” Steffens describes Sunnah and Shi’ite theologies, as the disagreements between Muslim sects troubled young Ibn al-Haytham. He realized that if one belief was true, then a conflicting belief could not be true. False beliefs were dangerous, he reasoned, as they obscured the truth and led believers away from God. After studying various belief systems in depth, he concluded that, in his words, “whatever differences exist between them are based not on the basic tenets of faith or the Ultimate Reality but on sociological content.” In his autobiography Ibn Haytham later wrote, “I studied in considerable detail the beliefs of various sects, thoughts, and theological systems, but I failed to gain anything which could point the way to Reality.” When Ibn al-Haytham discovered the works of Aristotle, he decided to examine the works of God in the universe, rather than studying the words of men. He not only wrote summaries for Aristotle’s works, but also commentaries. He also studied mathematics by Euclid as well as Ptolemy and Archimedes.

The author quotes from Qaysar that Ibn al-Haytham thought about resigning from the government office he was appointed to because of his love of pure learning. This was almost impossible, however, as resignation would have insulted the person who appointed him. He could not run away as this would bring dishonor to his family. According to Qaysar, Ibn al-Haytham pretended to be insane. The author makes a very detailed analysis of what may have actually happened by examining Ibn al-Haytham’s character and the claim that he misleads government officials by playing insane. The author writes, “This behavior seems incongruous with what is known of Ibn al-Haytham’s character and his commitment to Islam, which condemns lying.” He concludes, “Real or fake, Ibn al-Haytham’s mental breakdown allowed him to escape the drudgery of his government job.”

The book then concentrates on how Ibn-al Haytham traveled to Egypt, where he would make most of his contributions to science and especially optics. His invention of the camera obscura (the pinhole camera), his correct description of vision occurring when light rays enter the eye and stimulate the optic nerve, the fact that light travels in straight rays, and radiates from every point on a luminous object in all directions are all mentioned, along with some errors in his famous book Kitab al-Manazir (The Book of Optics). Most importantly, the author goes into great detail about how Ibn al-Haytham performed his research to arrive at these conclusions. Because Ibn al-Haytham established and used the scientific method as we know it today, it becomes apparent why the author calls him the first scientist. The author includes striking examples with diagrams and pictures demonstrating Ibn al Haytham’s experiments.

In his late life, Ibn al-Haytham supported himself by copying manuscripts, as well as teaching in Cairo. The author reports a story from al-Bayhaqi: “Ibn al-Haytham agreed to tutor a Syrian nobleman, Surkhab, but demanded one hundred dinars a month for payment. The price was high, but Surkhab did not hesitate to pay the fee. For years the Syrian studied with Ibn al-Haytham. At the end of his time, his education complete, Surkhab bid his tutor farewell. Ibn al-Haytham asked the nobleman to wait a moment. ‘You deserve this money all the more,’ Ibn al-Haytham said, returning all 3,600 dinars to Surkhab, ‘since I just wished to test your sincerity and, when I saw that for the sake of learning you cared little for money, I devoted full attention towards your education. Do remember that, in any righteous cause, it is not good to accept a return, a bribe, or a gift.”

In chapter six, the author gives a list of Ibn al-Haytham’s books (about 182 according to Ibn Abi Usaybi’ah), and ends the chapter with a possible journey back to Basra, or a continued stay in Cairo with Ibn al-Haytham’s return to God around 1040 AD. Steffens writes, “He turned towards the Ka’aba, and recited a verse from the Qur’an: ‘Verily my return is to You; I rely upon You and turn unto You.’”

The author ends his book by giving an account of occurrences after Ibn al-Haytham’s death, such as the reason why many works by Ibn Haytham went missing, and how his contributions transferred to Europe. As interest in pure science waned in the Muslim world, the opposite was happening in Europe, the author writes. After giving an account of how Christians in Europe viewed science, he talks about the role of Andalus (current-day Spain) in disseminating knowledge in the Muslim World towards Europe. Also a translator in Toledo translated Ibn al-Haytham’s Kitab al-Manazir, and titled the book De aspectibus, or The Optics. He called the author Alhacen, a Latinized form of al-Hasan. De aspectibus fascinated European scholars. The last chapter recounts how Roger Bacon, a Franciscan monk, wrote Perspectiva, a book on optics based largely on Ibn al-Haytham’s work. One important analysis Steffens makes is very significant:

“Although Roger Bacon acknowledged his debt to Ibn al-Haytham in the field of optics, he did not give the Iraqi scholar credit for having developed the method of inquiry that he strongly advanced. Instead, Bacon praised Peter Peregrinus, a French scholar he met while he was in Paris, as the master of experiments.”

The author explains the reasons behind this by taking a very careful historian’s approach:

“Bacon may have credited Peregrinus over Ibn al-Haytham for pioneering the experimental method because he knew the Frenchman personally and revered his work. Another motive may have been the fact that both Bacon and Peregrinus were devout Christians at a time when Muslims and Christians were fighting for control of Jerusalem and the areas around it in a series of wars known as Crusades. Bacon was a member of the clergy and Peregrinus even fought in one of the Crusades himself. Because of these ongoing conflicts, Bacon may have felt that attaching a Muslim scholar’s name to the scientific method may have slowed down its acceptance among the Christians.”

The book also includes many colorful illustrations from the pages of history relevant to understanding Ibn al-Haytham’s life and his contributions to science. The timeline at the end is very informative. Finally, it has sources, a bibliography, and web pages, which direct the interested reader to further information. I congratulate Bradley Steffens for his beautiful work about Ibn al-Haytham and his advancement of experimental science. I end with the last quotation of the book from Ibn al-Haytham which acts as a general guide for all serious scientists: “The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the job of the man who investigates the writings of scientist, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.”

The theory is simple: Cosmic particles coming from outer space continuously collide with stable carbon-12 atoms in CO2 molecules, which are widespread in the atmosphere. Each carbon-12 atom takes up two neutrons and is converted into a radioactive carbon-14 atom. Radioactive carbon-14 atoms rapidly mix and become uniform throughout the atmosphere. Deep oceans, the biosphere, and carbonate rocks are giant reservoirs of carbon and with the addition of the atmosphere they constitute the carbon cycle of the Earth. Within this cycle, radioactive carbon-14 is continuously created and disintegrated. Both processes are in equilibrium. Since the total amount of carbon on the Earth is constant, a constant ratio is established between the amount of stable and radioactive carbon. This same ratio is valid in all the reservoirs of carbon in this giant cycle. In the biosphere, both carbon-14 and carbon-12 atoms are added to the food chain via assimilation; first by plants through photosynthesis and then by animals through consumption of the plants. For an animal or a plant, a carbon-14 atom is no different from a carbon-12 atom in assimilation. Living beings continuously take up both atoms, so the ratio of both atoms in their bodies remains constant throughout their life. When an organism dies, the uptake of exogenous carbon is terminated. After this point, although the amount of carbon-12 remains constant, carbon-14 continues to disintegrate and the ratio starts to decrease after the body dies. Because the ratio after death is related to the time that has passed since death, it is possible to determine the date of death by measuring the amount of radiocarbon present.

The half-life of radiocarbon is 5,730 years. This means that after 5,730 years half of the total amount of radiocarbon in a dead body disintegrates. The remaining half decays in the following 5,730 years and only a quarter of the first amount remains. This goes on until a very minuscule, undetectable amount remains. In bodies less than 50,000 years in age the amount of radiocarbon can be detected. For an older body, the amount of radiocarbon is so small that the instruments would be unable to measure the amount of radiocarbon present. In addition, such a test obviously works only on the remains of things that were once alive, such as bones or wooden parts of an old structure.

But how accurate is an age determined by this method? How dependable is this technique for enlightening us about the past? Although the theory seems quite consistent from a general outlook, one can see it is not the case when analyzed more rigorously.

Archeologists have tried different ways to test the accuracy of the method. The results have revealed long-term and short-term variations from the actual ages. Long-term variations show systematic deviations of the radiocarbon age from the real age; that is as the date of the sample gets older the deviation increases. On the other hand, short-term variations show irregular fluctuations in the radiocarbon age from the real age. These deviations apparently reveal that the assumptions made concerning the radiocarbon technique were not accurate. The results of these important abnormal conclusions in radiocarbon dating were summarized in the Introduction to Prehistoric Archaeology as follows: “for years, it was thought that possible errors could have minor effects, however, recent research shows that the natural concentration of carbon-14 deviates at some certain periods, significantly affecting the calculated ages.”

The method is based on two assumptions that should be examined carefully: Firstly, the method assumes that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has remained constant in the atmosphere from the time the body died to the present. However, recent scientific research has proven that this ratio has not remained constant during geological time.

Secondly, the method also assumes that the carbon supply to the organism was made only by the global carbon cycle and no other source of carbon has affected the system.

Initial concerns about the possible sources of error were focused on the constant ratio assumption. So, why did the constant ratio assumption turn out to be incorrect? Actually, many reasons were found to refute the validity of this assumption. The most important ones are explained below:

Changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are believed to be responsible for long-term deviations in radiocarbon dating. By investigating the orientation of magnetic minerals in ancient rocks, geologists have proven that the magnetic field surrounding the Earth has not been constant throughout the time. Today, it is widely accepted that both the strength and direction of the Earth’s magnetic field has changed. Interestingly, these changes are appreciable even within a century. Changes in the geomagnetism affect the radiocarbon production in the upper atmosphere; cosmic rays are deflected according to the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. If the magnetic field is high, more cosmic rays are deflected away from the Earth and the production of radiocarbon falls. If it is low, production rises. When the production rate changes, a new equilibrium concentration in the carbon cycle as a whole can only be established after a considerable amount of time has passed. The likely time scale for achieving the complete new equilibrium level is about 10,000 years. This is about the same as the age of the sample that is to be dated! The bottom line is that anything that affects the density of cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere will affect the rate of radiocarbon production, thus affecting the ratio.

Short-term changes might be the results of different factors. One of these is the variation in sunspot activity. Sunspots appear as dark places on the surface of the Sun for a short period of time and generate strong geomagnetic storms. Sunspot activity increases the Earth’s magnetic field and leads to a decrease in the radiocarbon production rate. Therefore, again, anything that causes a change in the Earth’s magnetic field will affect this ratio.

Other effects for short-term variations are the changes in the Earth’s climate. It is widely accepted that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere during geological time is strongly related to temperature changes on the Earth. This fact is also key in understanding the global greenhouse effect, which occurs with the release of high amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by hydrocarbon combustion. The global sea level has also been affected by these climatic changes. During low temperature seasons (ice ages or glacial periods), large ice sheets covered most of the continents and as a result of this, the sea level dropped appreciably. During these periods, a high amount of carbon (as carbon-dioxide) was kept inside glaciers and they became C-14 depleted (dead carbon). By the end of the Ice Age, large amounts of dead carbon had been released into the system and they had decreased the global ratio of radiocarbon.

Actually, three more resources of dead carbon make a negative contribution to the ratio. One of them is the dead carbon that comes up from deep Earth through volcanic eruptions. Radiocarbon dating of an organism that lived in the vicinity of a volcano gives inaccurate results. Because of the expulsion of dead carbon, samples found close to volcanoes have less radiocarbon in their body than others. Consequently, the age determination of these samples gives significantly incorrect results.

As is obvious from the previous examples, the main problem arises in the lack of knowledge about the history of the sample being dated by this method. Another example is when the sample being tested is wood from the inner part of a tree; the radiocarbon method gives an incorrect result in this case. The reason for this is that the innermost part of a tree finishes the carbon cycle before the tree dies. If a sample was made from this part of the tree (it is impossible to know which part of a tree is being used) then the date produced would be greater than its real age.

Even human activity is an important resource for dead carbon. Although only effective since the last century, a high amount of dead carbon in the carbon dioxide has been released into the atmosphere by the burning of fuel. So the ratio of radiocarbon has decreased. Actually, compared to the factors above, this effect has a more profound influence on the application of radiocarbon dating: No recent organic material can be used as a modern standard. Because of this, the zero point of the timescale chosen is to be 1950 AD, as determined by the US National Bureau of Standards for quoting radiocarbon results.

Consequently, the ages determined by the radiocarbon method are not taken seriously by archeologists because of the problems in the basic assumptions upon which the method was established. Occasionally, the radiocarbon method is used to roughly determine whether an object is modern or of considerable antiquity; in essence, it is used as an authenticity test. Even then the answer may not be clear-cut; for example, an old piece of timber could have been carved to produce an authentic looking sculpture!

Radiocarbon dating is an example of how scientific tools should be used carefully to unfold the reality around us. Scientific theories are only poor models of what is happening in reality. The history of science is full of such examples, which sometimes may be misleading if not handled carefully.

Reference

Radiocarbon Dating, Sheridan Bowman, University of California Press, 1990

When Did English and Hindi Begin to Differ?

The long-established “comparative method” of linguistics uses vocabulary, the structure of words, and the sound systems of languages to draw language family trees, depicting in what order related languages (such as, English, Hindi, and ancient Hittite) diverged from their mother languages and the relative “relatedness” of sister languages. Dates of divergence are usually referred to dates of historical or archaeological significance. For example, the Romanian language, a relative of Italian, must have been introduced to the region between 112 and 270 AD, when Roman troops occupied Dacia. However, the comparative method does not provide any dates itself, other than those of relative chronology. Lexicostatistics, the rival study for vocabulary change, extracts essential vocabulary from languages, such as “I, three, and hand,” which are assumed to be more resistant to change, and produces a metric of shared cognates and, hence, language kinship. Assuming a constant rate of language change over time, one can extrapolate to pre-history dates for language evolution. For example, one may try to estimate when the proto-Indo-European, the ancestor of English, Hindi, and Hittite, started branching into distinct new languages. Unfortunately, the promise of lexicostatistics (and its method, called glottochronology) became doubtful quickly after its birth. It was criticized very much in the same way as biological phylogenetic analyses were. One example to show the correspondence is that just as the mutation rates of genes (sequences of DNA) may change over time, languages may also be changing faster or slower at certain periods. Lexicostatistics is unreliable, as the similarity between languages could be mere chance convergences, or borrowings, or on the other hand, distant relatives could be unrecognizable after a great deal of divergence. These objections have plagued biology in similar ways.

Phylogenetics and Philology Side by Side

IJeJaEghoManMeHandMainRukaCheriDastHathThreeTroisTriTriaSeTinMotherMereMatMiteraMaderMaNewNouveaunoviykenuryosTazeNeyanoseNezNosMitiNaNak

Figure 1: A partial list

for Indo-European words used by Gray and Atkinson (Dyen, I. Kruskal, J.B. & Black, P., FILE IE-DATA1 at http://www.ntu.edu.au/education/langs/ielex/IE-DATA1)

The recent study by Gray and Atkinson from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, published on November 27 in Nature, uses enhanced methods developed for phylogenetic studies in language tree construction, which produces trees that are consistent with those established by the comparative method. Most importantly, maximum-likelihood models and the Bayesian inference method were employed, both being statistical methods now established in phylogenetics, to counteract any weaknesses found in past attempts of glottochronology. Their method makes it possible to estimate divergence times without a strict rate of change, also enabling the determination of unsubstantiated sections of the tree, and the incorporation of these uncertainties in the calculation of the trees and divergence times. Gray and Atkinson only used fourteen age constraints to calibrate their divergence time calculations in estimating chronology, and after confirming tests eliminated some of these constraints, doubtful cognates, and other problems, they were able to come up with a date for the initial divergence of all Indo-European languages of 7,800 to 9,800 years ago. These dates coincide beautifully with the Anatolian farmer hypothesis, which claims dispersion of Indo-Europeans from Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) with the spreading of agriculture around 8,000-9,500 years ago, a hypothesis now supported by genetic studies that report a Neolithic, Near Eastern contribution to the European gene pool as well.

An Alternative Theory

This study does not extinguish one of the fiercest discussions of this century, which is favored by many linguists, that linguistic evidence favors the Kurgan expansion hypothesis, with Kurgan horsemen invading and spreading from the Asian steppes 6,000 years ago. It is thought that Kurgan horsemen possessed certain advantages, like the knowledge of the wheel and horseback riding, just as the Anatolians knew about farming. These linguists claim that the statistical and computational methods used in biology do not reflect the way languages change, and these methods use only vocabulary, but ignore grammar. This new study is a shot in the arm for the supporters of the Anatolian theory and resurrects glottochronology. Obviously, the discussion is far from being over. To reconcile the two, Gray and Atkinson note that they have observed an intense diversification period in their data at a date of 6,000 years ago, and they refer to an inclusive theory of both Anatolian origin and Kurgan expansion.2

Intertwined Trees

In their article Gray and Atkinson predict the combination of computational phylogenetic methods and vocabulary data to examine archaeological hypotheses in the future, as methods developed for biology continue to establish themselves in social sciences. As David Searls of Glaxo-Smith-Kline Pharmaceuticals concludes in his “News and Views” article in the same issue of Nature,3 “[this work] should stimulate even more cross-fertilization of ideas among those studying the intertwined trees of life and language.”

All methods of estimating “time” use the same principle: measuring the velocity of natural processes that show continuity over time. One of the most advanced methods of chronometry today is to use the velocity of quartz crystal vibrations when exposed to an electric field. The wristwatches we wear in our daily life are well-known applications of this method. Another method of measuring time is to measure the rate of decay of radioactive elements.

However, having a process with which to measure is not sufficient. To measure the time that has passed correctly there are three requirements that need to be satisfied. First of all, it is essential that the process is stable and immutable, even during the period before we were able to observe it. Secondly, the beginning state should be known. For example, the length of a candle before being lighted or the amount of water in a cup before being boiled should be known. Thirdly, the process should not be influenced by any outer effects.

Today, all these three factors have been applied in studies of measuring time. But, when the question comes down to Geochronometry (Measurement of geologic time, as through isotopic radioactive decay), they are somehow more difficult to apply. Since the selected process starts before the beginning of history, we do not have methods to observe the process directly or to make sure that these three requirements were met then as today. And this is where the problem starts.

For instance, we can use the salinity of the oceans as a means of measuring the age of the Earth (This method was developed in 1898 by Irish geologist John Joly). This is a promising method, because it is assumed that the amount of salt in the water of the ocean was originally zero, and that salt was propelled by rainwater and rivers from the soil. The encouraging fact about this method is that the amount of salt brought to the oceans by rainwater and rivers is constant (approximately 540 million tons of salt annually). Today, the average density of salt in oceans is nearly 32 grams per liter. By using this ratio, we can calculate the total amount of salt in the oceans as being approximately 50 quadrillion tons. When we divide this number by the amount of salt propelled annually, we can find the age of the Earth in years.

Joly calculated this as being 100 million years using this method. However, considering the study in light of the three requirements mentioned above, the shortcomings of this method are obvious. Firstly, we cannot really be sure that the amount of salt propelled was static in the geological past. There is good reason to think that the climate and annual rainfall might have been significantly different in the past. Ice ages, great droughts, excessive rains, and the undeterminable effects of these factors may have all played a part. Secondly, it is impossible to be sure that the oceans were salt-free at the beginning. They may have contained some salt (recent research carried out in the Atlantic demonstrates the possibility that salt could have penetrated through to the oceans from the magma layer). Thirdly, some external influences may have affected this so-called stable process. There is a large and self-replicating circulation of salt in the atmosphere. New clues lead us to think that the amount of salt in oceans today is stable. As soon as the salt propelled by rivers accumulates, it evaporates at the same speed. While a huge amount of salt evaporates in biological processes, a greater amount penetrates to the depths of the seas.

The Uranium-Lead Method

All the methods that estimate the age of the Earth suffer from the same shortcomings to some degree. The radiometric age estimation method, which can estimate age up to 4.5 million years, consists of measuring radioactive elements that have a long half-life and that maintain their radioactivity over a long period. These elements are uranium and thorium, which decay into helium and lead, rubidium, which decays into strontium, and potassium, which decays into argon. However, as we will see, the Uranium-Lead method has been given great importance, in particular by evolutionists.

The basic principle involved is that radioactive uranium 238, uranium 235, and thorium 232 atoms eventually decay into miscellaneous lead atoms, without any trigger (in addition, uranium 238 decays into helium gas).

Interestingly, the decay rate of each element is definite. Uranium and thorium atoms periodically radiate alpha particles. However, it is unpredictable which atom will decay when. But in any substantial mass of the mineral there will be many billions of atom, and with very large numbers of events the “law of large numbers” operates to produce a statistically predictable result.

The significant part of this theory is that radiogenic lead 206, which is not radioactive and which is decayed from radioactive uranium 238, is found in rocks. However, it differs chemically from lead 204, which is neither radioactive nor radiogenic. To estimate the age of a rock, it is split and the amounts of radioactive uranium and radiogenic lead found are measured. Since the decay rate is known, it is possible to calculate the age of the rock.

The half-life of uranium 238 – one of the isotopes used – is calculated as being 4.5 million years. This means that half of any amount of uranium 238 will decay into lead 206 in 4.5 million years. For instance, if an investigation shows that half of a rock consists of uranium 238, and the other half consists of lead 206, which is the final product of uranium 238, the rock is then 4.5 million years old (although this number has not been calculated by a direct measurement, it is an average age for the crust of the Earth).

If radiogenic lead (lead 206 that has decayed from uranium 238, lead 207 that has decayed from uranium 235, and lead 208 that has decayed from thorium 232) are truly the products of radioactive decay then it is assumed that these rocks contained no radiogenic lead at the very start of the process of rock formation. This is a reliable starting point for calculations. Simi-larly, it is assumed that radiogenic lead cannot penetrate rocks in any other way, and conse-quently there is no process that can affect the decay process. However, when examined carefully, we can see that this is not really the case. A new process in which “natural” lead transforms into a form that cannot be distinguished from radiogenic lead was discovered by experimentation (Cook, 1966). This transformation occurs by natural lead taking hold of free neutrons. These neutrons are atoms that have the energy to transform natural lead into radiogenic lead. Then what is the source of the free neutrons?

The Origin of Lead 208

The source of lead 208 lies in a radioactive mine bed where natural fission (the division of the nucleus of uranium) has taken place. (A uranium bed were such natural fission occurs has been found in The Gabon.) In this uranium bed, while some uranium 238 atoms decay into lead 206, others divide by natural fission and produce neutrons. These neutrons simultaneously transform natural lead (lead 204) and radiogenic lead (lead 206) to lead 208 isotopes in a gradual process. This isotope cannot be distinguished experimentally from lead 208, a product of the alpha decay of thorium 232. Therefore, the lead 208 isotope emerges from two different sources. However, Darwinists state that all lead 208 isotopes detected are the product of thorium 232, which would mean that there is a large amount of radiogenic lead, and subsequently that the process continues for a long time. Significantly, this is a mechanism that would tip our measurements in favor of an “old” Earth.

In the neutron capture process, the isotopic values of lead would be systematically changed: lead 206 would be converted into lead 207, and lead 207 into lead 208 by taking on a single neutron. What is interesting is that lead 208 makes up more than half of the lead in the bed. According to Darwinists, this means that there was a large amount of naturally occurring thorium 232 in that bed, which later changed into lead 208. However, Melvin Cook, who carried out research in uranium beds in Zaire and Canada (the largest uranium beds in the world) states that, although the beds do not contain thorium 232, they do contain a large amount of lead 208. This can only mean that lead 208 results from lead 207 taking hold of a neutron. He also states that all radiogenic lead can be accounted for in this way.

Other people have tried to denigrate Cook, a man who believed in “creation”, and his studies. Among these is the geologist Brent Dalrymple from the U.S. Geological Survey. Neither Dalrymple, who argued that the level of free neutrons were too low to make any significant difference in the number of lead 208 as lead isotopes in the beds, nor could anyone else provide a satisfactory explanation to why, although there was no thorium 232 in the beds, lead 208 was found in huge amounts. Uranium decay not only degrades the most important criteria of a reliable geocronometry method, but it also degrades the criteria of the process, i.e that it is stable, immutable, and not intervened with. Uranium, which naturally emerges as an oxide rather than a metal, and which shows a very high capacity of dissolving in water because of this property, ekes out of its original bed with water. Its effect in age estimation is unpredictable, as while some parts of the bed are poor in uranium, other parts are rich.

The Helium Problem

Beside lead, one of the final products produced in the decay of uranium 238 is radiogenic helium, the atomic weight of which is 4. It is thought that a significant proportion of helium in the atmosphere is radiogenic helium that emerges in the decay process that has continued throughout history. If the uranium-lead age estimation method is reliable, then the amount of helium in the atmosphere must suggest an age in agreement to the age provided by radiogenic lead estimation. However, the ages acquired from the two methods are significantly different. If the Earth were 4.6 billion years old, then there would be roughly 100 trillion tons of radiogenic helium 4 in the atmosphere. Actually, there are only around 3.5 billion tons present – several thousand times less than there should be (0.035 % to be precise).

Writing in Nature on the “mystery” of the Earth’s missing radiogenic helium, Melvin Cook says: “…Hence more than 1,020 grams of helium should have passed into the atmosphere since the ‘beginning.’ Because the atmosphere contains only 3.5×1,015 grams of helium 4, it must also have passed out through the exosphere, and that the present rate of loss through the atmosphere balances the rate of exudation from the lithosphere.”

Cook says that uniformitarian geologists have attempted to explain this discrepancy by assuming that the other 99.96 percent has escaped from Earth’s gravitational field into space – but this process has not been observed. In 1984, Dalrymple argued a mechanism that can explain this difference and that provides a reply to Cook’s proposal: “Banks and Holzer have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 million ions/cm2 per second of helium 4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of 2.51.5 million atoms/cm2 per second.”

There are two things that make Banks and Holzer’s findings unsuitable for the purposes to which Dalrymple tries to fit them. First of all, if the Earth really is 4.5 billion years old, then its atmosphere would have to lose helium at a rate somewhere around 1,016 atoms/cm2 per second, or some ten orders of magnitude faster than Dalrymple’s figure, to account for the missing helium.

Secondly, the numbers Dalrymple used were calculated 30 years ago. In that period, most scientists believed that the Earth moved in empty space (i.e., that nothing encapsulated the Earth but emptiness), and that hydrogen and helium atoms escaped to emptiness. New studies have shown that, rather than losing helium, the atmosphere gains a significant amount of helium. Since the Earth rotates around the Sun, it does not move in empty space, it moves in the atmosphere of the Sun, which is made up of mainly helium and hydrogen that have emerged from the nuclear processes that occur on the Sun. According to research, the Earth gains helium in this way as well.

In his book (1987) Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, space scientist James Lovelock writes: “The outermost layer of the air, so thin as to contain only a few hundred atoms per cubic centimeter, the exosphere, can be thought of as merging into the equally thin outer atmosphere of the Sun. It used to be assumed that the escape of hydrogen atoms from the exosphere gave the Earth its oxygen atmosphere. Not only do we now doubt that this process is on a sufficient scale to account for oxygen, but we rather suspect that the loss of hydrogen atoms is offset or even counterbalanced by the flux of hydrogen from the Sun.”

Lovelock mentions hydrogen, not helium. Helium is four times heavier than hydrogen and exists in abundance in the Sun’s atmosphere, since it is the main product of the nuclear fusion process on the Sun. If hydrogen were gained instead of being lost, it would be reasonable to expect this to occur for helium as well. Cook says: “If we take the amount of helium 4 measured in the atmosphere and then apply the radioactive age estimation technique, we will find that the age of the Earth is approximately 175,000 years. This invalidates our reliability criteria; the possible flow of helium from external sources interrupts this process.”

Cook is not alone in his thoughts. In articles published in influential journals, similar suspicions have been stated. Funkhouser and Naughton from the Hawaiian Geophysics Institute calculated the ages of volcanic rocks that had emerged from Mount Kilauea by using the potassium-argon method and calculated them to be nearly 3 million years old. However, it is know that these rocks were formed during a volcanic eruption in 1801. McDougall from the Australian National University calculated the age of lava in New Zealand to be up to 465,000 years old, even though it was known to be less than 1,000 years old (Milton 1997).

As a result, the reliability of radioactive age estimation is doubtful. What is being measured is the amount of products that have decayed, not the rate of decay. It is also difficult to discuss the origin of these products. Subsequently, all radioactive geocronometry methods can be said to be highly flawed and to lack reliability. The only reliable result that emerges from the incompatibility between uranium-lead age and uranium-helium age is the conclusion that radioactive age estimation is totally unreliable. The methods based on the decay of potassium into argon and rubidium into strontium suffer from the above mentioned shortcomings, in addition to others. However, some scientists try hard to advocate one single idea: evolution. The evolution lobby dampens the volume of courageous scientists, such as Milton and Cook, damages their prestige and frightens others by the overwhelming atmosphere they have created. All methods developed to estimate the age of the Earth are full of inconsistencies. Only one among them (based on the radioactive decay of elements, such as uranium) provided an age of millions of years for the Earth. While that single technique was supported enthusiastically by Darwinists, all others were ignored. This was because according to Darwinist theory, evolution required a long geological past in order to display its results in the long term. This propaganda program by the Darwinists was so successful that almost everyone, including scientists from different fields, have come to believe that radioactive age estimation is the only unquestionable and valid method for age estimation. Yet, as we have discussed above, all of these widely accepted beliefs lack sufficient support.

References

• Milton, R., Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Park Street Press. Vermont, 1997.
• Lovelock, J. E., Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press, 1997.

These and similar questions have occupied philosophers, scientists, and people of faith since the Renaissance. If religion were the ‘opiate of the masses,’ we could not expect an inquisitive mind to adopt any religion. But countless critical thinkers and scientists believe in a God that hears and responds to their prayers.(1)

What we mean by religion and science affects how we answer such questions. Therefore we must agree on common definitions. A study of the scientific method, where and how it is applied, is likely to shed light on the perceived conflicts between science and religion.

Science and Scientism

In broad terms, science is a systematic way of exploring the universe. The scientific method helps us discover facts that can not be directly observed. As described in SGNA: ‘Though we may be unable to observe an aspect of the universe directly, we may deduce its existence and its properties by observing the effect that it has on those phenomena that we can observe. In other words: by explaining the observed aspect of the universe, we go one step beyond that of mere observation, and we gain knowledge about something that we have not observed directly. This is the whole point: we gain information from sources other than direct observation. Use of the scientific method ensures that this information is accurate, and not influenced by the subjective points of view of a single researcher or the use of inaccurate instruments.'(2)

But there is a difference between accepting the scientific method’s discoveries and accepting as truth only what science discovers. The latter, which Huston Smith called scientism, is ‘the belief that no realities save ones that conform to the matrices science works with ‘space, time, matter/energy, and in the end number’exist.'(3)

The successes of science and technology, and their applications, have created a kind of utopia where science, especially positive science, has become the source of all knowledge and wisdom. In the views of positivist philosophers like Hume, Locke and Berkeley, anything that cannot be measured does not exist. But closer examination reveals the oversimplistic nature of this view.

Many contemporary scientific theories talk about subjects that cannot be directly measured. Take the atom. Physics textbooks are full of diagrams depicting it as consisting of a nucleus with and orbiting electrons. The diagrams may be quite sophisticated, and the explanation of how the system works can be quite detailed. Yet nobody has ever seen an atom. The closest we have come is seeing their positions via a Scanning Tunneling Microscope. But this has not prevented us from discovering the details of an atom’s inner workings.

The Scientific Method

When we want to discover new information about a subject, we first use direct observation, which has the highest degree of certainty. The scientific method establishes guidelines and procedures for objective, accurate, and systematic observation. The most dependable direct observation is the one that can be repeated and has known parameters. By repeating the observation under the same parameters, other scientists can verify a statement’s truthfulness.

When direct observation is not possible or insufficient, the thought process steps in. We infer and deduce based on observation. We hypothesize and look for exceptions. Such verification is where the scientific method really shines: It brings an objective mechanism for testing hypotheses to the discovery process. It helps us decrease the degree of uncertainty regarding that which cannot be observed directly.

Controlled and repeatable experiments are the next best techniques, for they enable us to obtain objective and sound knowledge. While we cannot control, we still can observe and infer. However, our degree of certainty and accurate knowledge decrease as we move further away from direct observation.

The scientific method’s main purpose is to decrease such uncertainty and to ensure that it is not affected by individual bias or equipment error. Our level of control while observing a phenomenon determines the level of our knowledge’s certainty. While the media or popular culture label certain statements scientific, their scientificness depends on the nature of the verification process. Some so-called scientific facts are direct observations; others are theories that require a thorough testing.

Not all scientists agree on what constitutes the scientific method. Some describe it as the collection of all means and methods scientists use to investigate a phenomenon. Since this definition is too broad, we will focus on a narrower one accepted by most scientists: The scientific method consists of the following:

1. Defining the problem and making repeated observations to collect information

2. Forming a hypothesis to explain the observed phenomenon

3. Testing the hypothesis by matching it against other observations

4. Developing a theory consistent with your observations

5. Using it to make predictions

6. Testing predictions by repeated, preferably controlled experiments and/or further observations

7. Modifying the theory as indicated by your results

8. Repeating steps 5 through 7 as necessary

9. Reporting the research notes and results for professional review.

These steps can be summarized into three stages: observing, theorizing about underlying causes, and verifying through more observations. Theorizing is the key step. The other steps require hard work and can be done by any competent, knowledgeable worker. Developing a theory, however, requires an flash of insight, sometimes called intuition.

Coming up with new ideas is part of what makes a great scientist. Despite its being the basis from which all scientific work proceeds, we cannot study or explain this scientifically. We may call it a gut feeling, hunch, inspiration, or insight, but we still do not know its source and cannot schedule it. We can encourage and stimulate it, but we cannot control it. The scientific method helps us ensure that what comes out of intuition is sound and objective, but does not how we come up with the idea. So the scientific method really is about verification.

Limitations

The main mechanism of verification is experiment and observation. While a powerful tool, verification is limited by its definition: If we cannot control a phenomenon or make proper observations, we cannot develop an idea into a scientific theory.

How do we establish a proper experimentation environment? First, we must set up a controlled experiment to control all the factors involved, except for the two factors whose relationship we are investigating. This involves a control and an experimental group. The control group is normal (basis for comparison), while the experimental group differs from the control in only one area.

We then allow for the experimental variable, defined as the one area of difference between the two groups. If we set up two groups of subjects with only one difference and our observation confirms a correlation between this factor and a result, we can safely say that that factor is a cause of that result. If we cannot establish two identical groups, the next best option is to try to average out the differences by selecting the group’s members so that no factor is represented disproportionately. This is usually possible only when working with inanimate objects.

It is extremely difficult to control all involved factors, as well as to conduct repeatable experiments, when the subjects are people. Since all people and societies are unique, it is very hard to repeat any psychological or sociological experiment. Also, observing people often causes behavior modification. Thus, some scientists have debated whether psychology and sociology, and others, are really sciences.

Several essential questions of personal and social life fall into this category of phenomena: ‘Questions about the origin of thought, about the origin of intuition or about creativity often lead into the realms of philosophy, if not existentialism. What makes the human mind work? Where does sentience come from? What is the ‘I’ that seems to live three or four inches behind my forehead and thinks it is me? And how are we ever going to apply the scientific method to answer these questions?'(4)

This leaves us with a dilemma: What should we do when confronted with an idea that is hard or impossible to verify scientifically? As noted in SGNA: ‘In modern science, the ‘scientifically correct’ approach in that case is usually to reject the idea. As long as we can’t prove that the idea is correct, it must be assumed to be incorrect. But that approach ignores the fact that the scientific method cannot be used to answer all questions.'(5) Science can tell us almost everything about our body-except Why? Why am I here? Who am I? What is the universe and why was it created? According to SGNA: ‘Science has never really dared to tackle these subjects. The questions are labeled ‘existentialism’ or ‘philosophy’ and ‘appropriately filed.”(6)

The Nature of the Conflict

Now we begin to realize the nature of the perceived conflict between science and religion: The humanities contain issues that the scientific method is ill-suited to answer and yet is taken as the ultimate source of knowledge. Most religious commands and prescriptions deal with an individuals personal and social life that do not tolerate experimentation. The risk associated with failure in such experiments is too high. We can tolerate the loss of some inanimate objects during experimentation, but not the loss of even one person. This is where the scientific method is at its weakest, and where religious directives are numerous, comprehensive, and direct. Where the scientific method is at its strongest, as in matters related to physical laws and inanimate objects, religious assertions are fewer, indirect, and serve the main purposes of faith. The perceived conflict in these areas is minimal and usually due to misinterpretation of religious sources. Before discussing another aspect of the relationship of science and faith, lets review some additional factors that contribute to the friction. In its pure form and when applied properly, the scientific method is a very powerful tool to establish a theorys truth or falsity. However, objectivity can be compromised by a scientists own humanity, for no one is completely free of bias, prejudice, ideological or political concerns, or peer pressure when it comes to income, belonging, fame, and high social status. Even though scientists pride themselves on their objectivity, cases of scientific fraud and plagiarism abound.(7) Sometimes community prejudices and biases make scientists resist new theories and findings for unscientific reasons. The scientific community at first laughed at some of the greatest theories of the twentieth century. Peer review may hinder advancement, and theories and perspectives may go in and out of fashion. It is hard to oppose the whole society to defend new theories and findings. History is full of accounts where unscientific factors have affected scientific work.

The Limitations of Logic

Human logic is a limited truth-seeking device, a machine with a mechanism, inputs, and outputs. Assuming the mechanism works perfectly, the output depends on the input. Hence two persons with different sense-related inputs may reach different conclusions by using the same logical mechanism. The logical mechanism may not always work perfectly. There are many examples of logical fallacies, among them wrong inference, improper generalization, false assumptions, and false analogies.(8) So when a religious jurisdiction is perceived as illogical and hence unscientific, it could very well be because of a limitation in the logical inference mechanism or in the subject knowledge. Philosophical reasons often cause friction between science and religion. Asa Gray, a faithful colleague of Darwin, was puzzled by Darwins atheistic proposals in the Theory of Evolution, for certainly God could use evolution to create diverse life forms. Darwin indicated that he had problems reconciling suffering with a merciful God, among other difficulties, and so had adopted an atheistic perspective.(9) Thus, he proposed an atheistic theory due to his philosophical problem with religion. But this is not the only relationship between science and faith. There are others, such as: Do science and religion live in orthogonal spaces? Do they present mutually exclusive views of the universe, thereby making themselves incompatible? But first of all, what is the role of reason in establishing ones faith?

The Worlds of Faith and Reason

By definition, religious faith implies belief in the Unseen. For many, belief is the culmination of a mental and spiritual effort transcending reading the Scripture and blind faith. Many religions command us to use our intellect. The Quran, in particular, emphasizes the use of reason in hundreds of verses. The pillars of Islam are shown to be evident truths for those who have intellect. Believers are encouraged to observe nature, reflect, and draw conclusions. To show how a logical process may lead people to believe in God or confirm their belief by reason, lets look at three pillars of major monotheistic religions: the Creator, life in the Hereafter and Messengers. Just like a work of art displays the artists skills, the universe can be seen as a huge collection of art by the Eternal Artist. The universe, as well as each human being, contains countless signs of organization and order. The human brain is immeasurably more complex than the most sophisticated computer. Since we could not attribute even the simplest computer to pure chance, how can we attribute the design of the human brain to a random process? These signs point to an all-knowing and powerful Creator. The human soul yearns for eternity and is not satisfied with any earthly pleasure. While all of our desires potentially can be fulfilled on Earth, leaving this critical desire for eternity unfulfilled would be a contradiction. Hence there must be an eternal life. It only makes sense for the Creator and Sustainer of this universe to communicate with the creatures who possess the most advanced intellect and the ability to communicate with language. Hence Messengers and revealed Scriptures make perfect sense.(10) This method of basing ones beliefs on observation and logical inference is essentially the scientific method without direct observation. A person whose belief is thus established can claim to be as scientific as a person studying anthropology or fossil zoology, for both deal with the available (indirect) evidence and logical conclusions. Although their objectives and foci differ, faith and science help us discover what is not directly observable. Sciences primary area of interest is the physical laws of the universe; faith is concerned with the personal and social principles that lead persons and societies to happiness in this life and the hereafter. Both appeal to our intelligence and our ability to observe. Believe suggests something not directly observable; Theory (in science) implies something not directly observable. If everything religion tells us were directly observable everybody would be a believer or, more accurately, an observer. If everything we needed to know were directly observable, the scientific method and scientists would be unnecessary. Nevertheless, non-believers may object by pointing out that having established their faith scientifically, believers may have to submit to religious directives that they may not understand or question. Inquiry is the basis for scientific advancement, while submission is an essential tenet of any religion.

Inquiry and Submission

The only sources that have satisfying answers for such questions as asked above are the major monotheistic religions. Science does not attempt to answer purpose or why questions, mainly because these questions imply an intelligent, wise Being behind creation. Since most scientists are reluctant to accept such an implication, they do not necessarily think that there should be a reason for existence other than a lucky accident. When people question the source of knowledge and become sure of its authenticity, and if they still have difficulty understanding, they must choose between their limited, imperfect logic and a source in which they have confidence. They do not stop questioning; rather, they change the nature of their investigation. Instead of rejecting immediately, they accept and investigate the underlying wisdom. So, believing scientists first base their belief on observation and reason and then explore the wisdom behind the Divine sentiments.

Conclusion

We live in an age ruled by science and positivism. The scientific method is considered the most reliable source of knowledge in almost every aspect of human life. In its moderate form, this worldview reduces superstitions and prejudices that have chained human reason in many societies. However, it also has the unscientific generalization of completely rejecting all other sources of knowledge and hence limiting inquiry into a purely material and quantifiable form. While friction among scientists was the norm for past centuries, harmony among moderates is establishing itself as we enter a new millennium. Today, it is possible to find scientists from reputable institutions who are willing to use the scientific method to explore subjects considered taboo for centuries, such as the role of prayer in physical healing. They do so despite the risk of being labeled as charlatans by their colleagues.11 This encourages us to think that one day the scientific method of inquiry could be used to investigate such essential questions as the purpose behind creation and signs of an eternal life without necessarily rejecting all religious doctrines. Open-minded and believing scientists are poised to show us that religion can coexist and is compatible with reason and science, which know their limitations.

Footnotes

1. National Institute for Healthcare Research: http://www. nihr.org.
2. The Skeptics Guide to the New Age: Limitations of the Scientific Method: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/ sgna_5.html.
3. Huston Smith, Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the Worlds Religions (San Francisco: Harper, 1993).
4. The Skeptics Guide to the New Age.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Michael W. Friedlander, At the Fringes of Science (Westview Press: 1998); H. M. Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What You Should Know About Science (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1998); David J. Miller and Michel Hersen, Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences (John Wiley & Sons: 1992).
8. Nicholas Capaldi, The Art of Deception: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (Prometheus Books: 1987); T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Wadsworth: 1995); S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Bedford Books, 1994).
9. Frederick Burkhart, Charles Darwins Letters: A Selection 1825-1859 (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1998).
10. For extensive essays on this subject, consult Said Nursi, The Words (Truestar: 1997) and The Flashes (Sozler: 1996).
11. Alphonse Williams, Healing and Faith, The Fountain 3:30 (April-June 2000): 8-14.

As mentioned above, a survey seeks to make inferences about a population based on information obtained from the sample. This objective is related to cost and time constraints, because, as in our example of American teenagers, it would be very costly to measure all of their IQs. Instead, a representative subset (a “random sample”) of teenagers is taken, and then their IQs are measured. In some situations, the entire population might be surveyed, as in a census or when dealing with small populations. Even if the population is small, the test to obtain particular information from an element might require that element’s destruction. For example, to determine one’s blood cholesterol level, a blood sample consisting of a few milliliters of blood, not all of it, should be taken. If we want to determine the average lifespan of light bulbs manufactured on an assembly line, we should take a reasonably sized sample, such as a few hundred, and test them to see how long they last. Otherwise the company would go bankrupt.

The basic problem of a survey is the validity and reliability of its results. The solution lies in the three segments of conducting a survey: planning, data collection, and analysis and reporting. Usually the public sees the reporting segment. However, since the public does not know how the survey was conducted, it is prone to be misled by the reported results. To determine a survey’s reliability, one must know the sources of bias affecting its outcome. These biases can be traced to the interviewer or the researcher, the format of the questionnaire or the experiment, the availability of information, and other causes.

From a researcher’s point of view, these source biases must be kept as small as possible. The most serious bias problems arise from the questionnaire type and the sampling methods used. For example, if the questionnaire refers to a socially desirable situation, respondents tend to answer in accordance with the social desirability. Say people are asked whether they read the front page or the sports page of the newspaper first. Many will answer that they read the front page first, even if they really read the sports page first, because reading the front page first makes one look more sophisticated. Hence it is a socially desirable attribute.

A more interesting example is provided by a survey done by the American Society of Microbiology. Its researchers wanted to determine the percentage of people who wash their hands after using public restrooms. When they surveyed a randomly selected sample in the Washington, DC, area over the phone, 94 percent said that they washed their hands afterwards. However, researchers who observed 6,333 people using public restrooms in five major American cities found that only 68 percent did so. Here, the socially desirable situation is, of course, washing one’s hands after using public restrooms.

A researcher also has to be very careful when interpreting the results of a question seeking potentially incriminating or embarrassing (i.e., socially undesirable) information. Suppose we distribute to the people of a particular town a questionnaire asking whether they have used marihuana during the past 12 months. The responses will give a very low estimate of the exact percentage of marihuana users, because drug usage is a serious crime in this country. Fortunately there is an interesting solution to this problem: Randomized Response Technique (RRT).

This is how it works. Suppose that the interviewer presents a 6-sided die to the respondents and gives them a paper that contains the following instructions: Roll the die first, but do not show the outcome to the interviewer. Then:

i) If it shows 1 or 2, answer YES regardless;

ii) If it shows 3 or 4, answer NO regardless;

iii) If it shows 5 or 6, answer truthfully.

Give your answer in the following boxes:

[]Yes []No

By using this clever method, one can estimate the exact percentage more accurately, because there is no way to match the answers to the respondents. Here’s how it can be done: Say we surveyed 1,500 people and received 700 “yes” answers. First, the probability of the die showing 1 or 2 is 2/6 (or 1/3). The odds for the die showing 3 or 4, as well as 5 or 6, are the same. Hence we expect that the die will show 1 or 2 in 500 respondents, 3 or 4 in 500 respondents, and 5 or 6 in 500 respondents. According to the directions, we expect 500 respondents to answer “yes” and another 500 respondents to answer “no” regardless of the truth. If the total “yes” responses is 700, then the number of “truthful yes” responses is 700-500=200. Now, we see that 200 out of 500 answered “yes” when the questionnaire asked for a truthful answer. This result gives 40 percent (=200*100/500) as the estimated percentage of actual marihuana users.

Another source of serious bias stems from the sampling plans and methods employed. In practice, various time, space, and cost constraints prevent us from dealing with actually random samples (samples that are representative of the population). Given this, let’s analyze the most common sampling methods.

Haphazard Sampling: Many biological studies use this method to select specimens to be examined from a cage or a tank. This technique involves catching the animals by hand or by a net “at random” in that particular cage or tank. However, those animals that are caught in such a manner are usually the ones that are more friendly, weaker, or less agile. This problem can be solved with more effort and money. Therefore, when the results of a biological research study are presented, one should check the randomness of the sample and then reach his or her own conclusion, because if the results are the based on haphazard sampling they will be quite biased.

Judgment Sampling: In this method, “a couple of experts” determine the “typical units” that represent the population. This method is also extremely poor, because “experts” tend to disagree on which items are typical. Yates (1981) presents a good example. He had 12 experts collect a total of 1,200 stones, and then asked them to select three distinct samples of 20 stones as typical of the population according to their weight. Surprisingly, 30 out of 36 samples selected overestimated the true average weight.

Volunteer Sampling: If respondents are chosen from volunteers (generally human beings), then the results have considerable bias. This method is widespread in medical studies, because usually it is the only way to get relevant results. Since the medical profession’s ethical code does not allow one to obtain random samples in medical experiments, various animals, such as guinea pigs, are used in labs. However, because drugs that are effective on animals are usually not all that effective on human beings, their relevance is not so clear. For example, we often hear that a particular “study shows that such and such an ingredient is harmful to your health, or cures such and such a disease.” These are very poor statements, and hence not so reliable. However, they were the only results we could obtain. This bias is somewhat removed by continual progress in medicine.

Restrictive Sampling: This method is particularly important, because it yields very strange results when applied to social science research. Here, one takes a sample that is easy to obtain for a couple of different reasons. For instance, in archeology and history, the possessions of a king or an aristocrat are more likely to survive than those of a serf or a vassal, for the belongings of the rich and powerful are more durable and of a much higher quality and therefore survive for a longer time. In the United States, for example, a great deal of furniture and many houses of slave owners have survived; only very little of their slaves’ possessions have survived. In Egypt, the artifacts discovered by archeologists belong mainly to the upper class (pharaohs, the noblility, etc). As a result, historians and archeologists produce very biased results, for their conclusions are based mainly on evidence belonging to members of the rich and/or aristocratic classes.

Is there a solution? Obviously, researchers only accept tangible items as evidence. Even though these artifacts are “hard” evidence, they cause the poor, and those who led modest and humble lives, to be under-represented in history. For example, many Prophets left virtually no personal items behind, except for ones like Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses (peace be upon them all), who were considerably recent.

Such an absence of personal items might be due to the fact that they led modest lives and shunned luxury. Hence, historians and archeologists should reconsider their position on this issue. In order to correct the bias engendered by restricting their conclusions only to tangible evidence, they should add the Holy Books and written religious texts to their category of “acceptable” evidence.

Another example is the media, whose usage of restrictive sampling produces very bigoted and biased results. The image of Islam presented in the Western media is a good example of this, for its depiction of Islam contains many misconceptions. First, Islam is presented as an exclusively Arab religion, despite the fact that Arabs account for only 15 to 20 percent of all Muslims. So either obtaining a representative sample of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims seems very hard to journalists, or else they deliberately restrict their samples to Arabs.

The most serious and severe misconception, however, is the media’s equating Islam and terrorism, although the word “Islam” literally means “peace.” On the other hand, the Western media somehow manages to mention Muslims and terrorism together many times. This is also quite odd, for only 1 percent or less of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims favor so-called “militant” groups. When news about such people is broadcast, this little percentage is strangely magnified, and the stereotype is generalized to include all Muslims.

It is also incorrect to label these militant groups as “Islamic.” This is definitely a sampling problem, which seems to be done either on purpose or in a cursory way. Are there no good Muslims among 1.2 billion Muslims of the world? Rationally, if we suppose the impossible (that all Muslims really are terrorists), they would have destroyed the entire world already. Similarly, but to a lesser extent, there are stereotypes for Jews and Christians (mostly Catholics).

There is an urgent need for collaboration and cooperation between different religious groups to get rid off such damaging misconceptions and stereotypes. Muslims, having the worst stereotype, should be in the forefront of this undertaking. According to my experience and knowledge, many religious beliefs and teachings, and their followers, bear no resemblance to these misconceptions.

Such restricted sampling results in many seriously flawed conclusions in social science disciplines. Consider the case of Sigmund Freud, who still has many advocates and fans, as well as opponents, of psychology. From a sampling perspective, his analysis of the ego (psychoanalysis) cannot be considered reliable, for he based his hypothesis on just two persons: himself (at 1897) and an 18-year old female hysteric (Dora). Even from the statistical point of view, two people (the first one probably obsessed with sexuality, and the second an obviously abnormal person) can in no way be considered representative of the 2 billion people living at that particular point in time. Here, of course, I consider the severe time and cost restraints, but still, the existence of such difficulties does not justify the validity of Freud’s conclusions.

CONCLUSION

In this article, we approached different issues in the social and physical sciences from a sampling (statistical) point of view. Surprisingly, this approach gave very interesting results in various sciences. The validity of any survey or research does not depend on its publicity (whether it is published, broadcast, or widely accepted); what is essential is that the whole picture be covered. Newly emerging interdisciplinary areas can help keep track of the whole picture. Also, the validity and reliability of results obtained through research, surveys, hypotheses, and theories depend upon the researcher’s morals and honesty and ability to see “the big picture.” Scientists and journalists should be very careful and responsible in their research, for most people are inclined to accept, without further exploration, whatever they hear or read.

REFERENCES

• Bill, James A. “Islam: Misunderstood throughout the World.”
• http://www.muslim.net/isla /intro8.html.
• Freud, Sigmund. “Chronology.” http://freud.t0.or.at/ freud/index-e.htm.
• “Misconceptions about Islam.”
• http://www.muslim.net! islam/miscons.html.
• Warde, William D. Sampling Methods. Oklahoma State University, 1990.