New developments in scientific thought and hypotheses testing are changing the ways we think about truth and certainty.

Not only do scientific decisions rely heavily on tools and procedures of quantitative analysis, but also on social life and daily decisions. I want to start with a story from the judiciary system about the misuse of an important quantitative tool of the scientific community, Hypothesis Testing. It’s about the overturned Amanda Knox case in Italy. In 2007, she was accused of killing her roommate and sent to jail. The odds of DNA matching in the case of accidental death were reported as incredibly rare by a forensic data analyst, who examined data with regard to incidents of crime, concluding that the accident is not statistically an accident. The judges then made their decision based on this rareness, a single value, named p-value. Later, this was overturned (New York Times, March 27, 2013), because of a misinterpretation by the judges and lawyers, of the rare probability. What factors forced the judiciary system to make this decision based on a single value alone? Honestly, this is the story of the century and a story of Hypothesis Testing. This article introduces the logic behind their decision, draws attention to the misuse of data, and mentions alternative logics to this traditional approach on the matter (in March 2013, Italy’s Supreme Court ordered a retrial and found the two suspects guilty on January 30, 2014).

What is Hypothesis Testing?

We live in a data-driven world. Statistical inference is the process of drawing conclusions or decisions from data. The Hypothesis Testing procedure in the Neyman-Pearson paradigm is one of the procedures of this process, widely used in the scientific community for over a century. In this mindset, two complementary hypotheses are first defined: one is the conventional thesis (the null hypothesis) accepted to be true by default; the other is the alternative thesis (the alternative hypothesis) that needs evidence from data to falsify the null hypothesis. It results in a single value, called p-value, which is calculated from the data using theoretical model assumptions. A p-value is a measure – in probability sense, ranging from 0% to 100% – of how much evidence you have against the null hypothesis. The smaller the p-value, the more evidence you have against the null hypothesis. One may combine the p-value with the significance level to make decisions on a given hypothesis. This is also called significance testing. It has an accept-reject mindset (dichotomous decision or binary logic); in such a case, if the p-value is less than some threshold (usually .05) then the null hypothesis is rejected. Basically, it is a black or white decision, without considering the contrasts between them. This interpretation has been widely accepted in the twentieth century of scientific research, and many scientific journals routinely publish papers using this interpretation for the results of hypothesis tests, even though there are current tendencies not to use this. Let’s take a look at the history of this black-white logic.

History

The history of the process of hypothesis testing starts with Fisher (1890-1962), around the early twentieth century. Later, the contributions of Pearson (1857-1936) and Neyman (1894-1981), who were early fathers of statistics, about the interpretation of the hypothesis tests were integrated into present-day applications. Fisher’s approach focuses on inductive inference about a single hypothesis, whereas the Neyman-Pearson approach informs future behavior based on a test using two complementary hypotheses (Newman 2007).

These approaches are strongly influenced by Popper’s logic of falsification. Falsification can be defined as the act of disproving a proposition, hypothesis, or theory. This logic asserts that sufficiently improbable events can be considered impossible. A p-value suggests whether a null hypothesis is sufficiently improbable to be considered practically falsified in the sense of a logical refutation (Newman 2007). When we come back to the Amanda Knox case, the decision the judges made and justified is followed from this falsification logic in hypothesis testing. Another criticism with this mindset is: how fair it is to rely on a single value that yields a rare result? Are we going to generalize one lucky drawing of raffle tickets to believe all tickets are winners?

Logics and proofs

We use logical flaws and biases in our daily life. Finding the logical flaw in scientific papers is something most readers aren’t interested in. Instead, the results are believed as a fact. One of the widely used flaws/biases is in seeking or interpreting evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs or a hypothesis in hand (Mercie and Sperber, 2011). We tend to prove or show the accessibility or superiority of arguments by bringing evidence. Failure to prove that a treatment – say, a low fat diet – is effective is not the same as proving it is ineffective.

Let me give another example to clarify this: The New York Times editorial news reported on February 9, 2006, “Millions of Americans have tried to reduce the fat in their diets, and the food industry has obligingly served up low-fat products. Yet now comes strong evidence that the war against all fats was mostly in vain.” Actually, in the hypothesis testing mindset, the evidence collected from research should either reject the null hypothesis which is “diet is ineffective,” or fail to reject it. The mindset in testing is not about finding evidence to support the null statement. It is also not about proving the alternative hypothesis, “diet is effective.” Rather, it is basically looking for evidences to falsify the null statement. In the report, the “evidence” the reporter meant should be against the null hypothesis, not against the alternative hypothesis. Data is collected to falsify the null hypothesis, not to prove its truthiness, because the null is already accepted to be true unless convincing evidence is collected against it.

Let me give another example of this paradigm. As Newfoundland (2013) described, a person is innocent until proven guilty by bringing convincing evidence. The jury can’t say “he is innocent,” instead, the jury uses evidence that produces reasonable doubt to reject his innocence.

Developments in inferential paradigms

The accept-reject paradigm in inference represents a conventional wisdom. There are other, or currently developing, paradigms in inference, too. One of the dominating paradigms is the Bayesian-likelihood approach. After enjoying much wider acceptance in social and natural sciences, the Bayesian method suggests different views of hypothesis testing. The Bayesian approach is a method of data analysis in which subjectivity, conditionality, or past information is used to update the hypothesis as additional evidence is acquired. This approach in hypothesis testing offers a dynamic structure in probability calculation so hypotheses, and decisions, are not seen as a static truth; instead, they are updated with current data and the decision is stated in the sense of likelihood.

In our court room example, the Bayesian inference is applied to all evidence presented, with the past information being combined with the current evidence. The benefit of a Bayesian approach is that it gives all historical information so the decision is unbiased all along as the past data (prior knowledge) is used correctly. This paradigm changes the way statistics are calculated and how the result and inference are interpreted. Currently it is widely appreciated in quantitative data analysis, especially after convenient software exists for its implementation. However, the criticism to this approach, made by many, is found in its subjectivity. Objectivity and handling prior knowledge is a concern here so that different people, having different opinions, may arrive at different results.

Another developing paradigm: Fuzzy Logic

Fuzzy logic is another method in quantitative decision making. In contrast to binary logic (yes-no, or accept-reject), fuzzy logic can be thought of as gray logic, which allows a way to express in-between data values. It emerged in the development of the theory of fuzzy sets, by Lotfi Zadeh (1965). Fuzzy logic is mostly seen as a branch of artificial intelligence that deals with reasoning algorithms used to emulate human thinking and decision making. It handles the concept of partial truth using linguistic variables, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. The concept of partial truth would be subjective and would depend on the observer. For example, for the temperature of the weather, we want to determine when to say cold, warm, and hot. The meaning of each of these concepts can be represented by a certain membership (called a fuzzy set). The concept of each would be subjective. One might consider cold for all values up to 40 0F. In Figure 1, the meanings of the expressions cold, warm, and hot are represented by functions mapping a temperature scale to “truth values” ranging from 0 to 1. A point on that scale has three truth degrees, one for each of the three functions (expressions). The vertical line in the figure represents a particular temperature that the truth values (see three arrows) are measured. Since the red arrow points to zero, this temperature may be interpreted as “not hot.” The orange arrow (pointing at 0.2) may describe it as “slightly warm,” and the blue arrow (pointing at 0.8) “fairly cold” (Fuzzy Logic, 2013, para. 6). A rule could then be adopted, like for example, if “slightly warm” then stop the fan.

Picture was obtained from

Fuzzy logic uses truth degrees as a mathematical model of the vagueness phenomenon, and it summarizes data analysis in facts with truth degrees, and leaves the decision to the observer. Its advantage is its ability to deal with vague situations with respect to linguistic variables. While the significance testing for a hypothesis declares one accept or reject, fuzzy logic allows for degrees of acceptance or rejection. However, in fuzzy logic, the notion of truth doesn’t fall by the wayside, but it is expressed in degrees and offers possibilities for different situations. Regarding inference, fuzzy logic uses the mindset ‘everything is a matter of degree and open to interpretation,’ and this mindset is also adopted to machine learning, which is considered a more suitable mindset with human reasoning instead of binary logic. The constraints in fuzzy logic are found in its tools and interpretations when complex inputs are considered.

The developments of paradigms in statistical inference have similar fates as in the developments of mathematics, geometry, and physics. According to the Euclidean parallel postulate, in space, there exist no two parallel lines that intersect each other. However, after Non-Euclidean geometry was developed in the nineteenth century, a wider geometrical and mathematical reasoning stemmed from it; accordingly, the geometry of the physical universe and particles came to be understood better. The development of Riemannian geometry, offering that distance properties might vary, resulted in the synthesis of diverse results concerning the geometry of higher dimensional surfaces and the behavior of geodesics on them. It also made Einstein’s theory of general relativity justifiable. Likewise, as time passes, we witness wider paradigms or logics that abandon or correct former approaches in scientific decision making tools. This is a good reason why teachers and professors should update their current teachings as to be consistent with convincing trends, as well as to train students to be ready for wider paradigms in the future.

Conclusion

In today’s scientific community, the way decisions are made and fallacies proved, are changing as new paradigms emerge. In order to make better decisions or to validate claims, many aspects and methodologies should be considered. One way to avoid mistakes as much as we can would be to expect fallacy points to exist in human mental processing during decision making, and improving and seeking better alternatives with well-established wisdoms.

(Thanks Ugur Sahin for reviewing the preliminary copy of this article.)

References

• Fuzzy Logic. In Wikipedia. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
• Kass, Robert E. 2011. Statistical Inference: The Big Picture 1. Statistical Science, 2011, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1-9, DOI: 10.1214/10-STS337, Institute of Mathematical Statistics.
• Mercier, Hugo, Dan Sperber. 2011. “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 34, 57-111.
• Newfoundland, Jason. 2013. “The Cell Phone-Brain Cancer Controversy.” The Fountain Magazine, Jan-Feb, Issue 91.
• Newman, Michael C. 2008. “‘What exactly are you inferring?’ A closer look at hypothesis testing.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 1013-1019, 2008.

Yet, despite all the attention devoted by academic observers, activists, and policymakers, progress in remedying these still endemic social problems has been limited, uneven, and all too reversible. Why have the efforts of an army of social scientists working over several generations not yielded more tangible progress in combating our most pressing social problems? In this essay, I argue that the lack of a coherent conception of human nature has contributed to the frustrating results of our attempts to advance human society through scientific inquiry. I suggest that greater understanding of the human spirit can contribute to the overarching project of improving the human condition that unites all of the social sciences.

Speaking broadly and simplifying vastly (as limited space necessitates), two meta-paradigms concerning human nature have guided much social science research in the past several decades. On the one hand, there is a rationalist paradigm that theorizes human beings as egoists rationally pursuing their self-interest. This understanding of human nature provides the foundation for the discipline of economics and has become increasingly dominant in political science. In emphasizing that actions follow a “logic of consequences” in which decisions are based on how expected outcomes will affect an individual’s utility, the rationalist paradigm does not consider morality an inherent dimension of human action. In this framework, people are portrayed as largely amoral, only taking normatively proper actions if doing so benefits them personally or if they happen to derive unusually high utility from virtuous behavior due to idiosyncrasies in character.

In political science, the assumptions underlying the rationalist paradigm lead to a rather pessimistic outlook on the likelihood of arriving at morally agreeable outcomes. For instance, there is no reason to believe that a dictator will stop employing violence against his own citizens just because the international community urges that it is the right thing to do; rather, such behavior will continue until the leader’s incentive structure changes, making political repression too costly to continue. However, characterizing people as rational actors need not entail such a bleak outlook. In economics, for example, there seems to be an almost axiomatic faith in Adam Smith’s notion that the rational pursuit of self-interest benefits the entire collectivity.

In contrast to the rationalist approach, there is a normative paradigm that conceives of human beings as primarily concerned with aligning their actions to standards of appropriateness for particular roles and identities in different social situations. While the rationalist paradigm thrives in economics and political science, the normative paradigm is most prevalent in sociology. From this perspective, people are less concerned with doing whatever it takes to achieve their aims than with determining which actions are prescribed for given circumstances and behaving accordingly. In this way, actors do what is perceived as right for its own sake, operating according to a “logic of appropriateness” rather than a “logic of consequences.” In a sharp contrast to the amoral egoists that populate rationalist models of the world, human actors in the normative paradigm are conceived of as fundamentally moral beings, deeply influenced by what their communities consider right and proper.

While acknowledging the potential for a gap between standards of appropriate behavior and the capacity to adhere to those standards in practice, the normative paradigm tends towards an optimistic estimate of the possibility of achieving morally desirable outcomes. Problematic behavior can be corrected through moral suasion based on clearly articulated normative standards, without necessarily appealing to the self-interest of deviant actors, as in the rationalist paradigm. For instance, pro-democracy international institutions might be able to socialize officials from authoritarian countries into valuing democracy for its own sake, transcending their rational inclination to perpetuate oppressive arrangements.

How can we reconcile these profoundly disparate visions of humanity in analyzing and attempting to remedy social problems? Many acknowledge that social action can follow both the rationalist “logic of consequences” and the normative “logic of appropriateness,” but social theorists have yet to construct a coherent framework that can explain when action might follow one or the other logic. Far too much energy has been expended in unproductive debates in which analysts draw on limited empirical findings to assert the superiority of their favored approach.

To be sure, both paradigms are intuitively plausible, and one can easily find cases that fit the predictions of each. But both approaches are incomplete, and unable on their own to account for the full range of human behavior. The rationalist paradigm offers no explanation for why discourses about norms and morality comprise such an essential part of everyday human experience, while the normative approach fails to account for the pervasiveness of anti-social and immoral behavior. But if we are neither the self-seeking sociopaths envisioned by the rationalist paradigm nor the perfectly socialized automatons imagined by the normative paradigm, then who are we?

I suggest that social scientific analysis and policymaking might be well served by drawing on conceptions of human nature that derive more from the inherited wisdom of religious traditions and less from the abstract deductions of contemporary theoretical paradigms. The perspective I advocate takes up a broad theme of the Abrahamic faiths – the universal corruptibility of the human spirit, beginning with the transgressions of the very first human beings in the story of the Garden of Eden. In other words, I argue that it is analytically useful for social science research to conceptualize human beings as sinners.

With this characterization, I suggest that people are highly aware of and concerned with the normative prescriptions of the various social groupings to which they belong, and typically act to uphold and reinforce these standards of behavior. However, as the fallible creatures that we are, we fall prey to a range of spiritual lapses that lead us to use to violate even our most sacred moral codes. Common-sense reflection on the historical record of human behavior can shed light on how our penchant for sinfulness expresses itself. We have shown that we disregard the lives of others in the pursuit of profit and power. We dehumanize and oppress those whom we perceive as different from ourselves. We grow comfortable in positions of wealth and influence, protecting our own standing against changes that would benefit the rest of society. We think only of our own short-term gain rather than our long-term responsibilities to those who will come after us. We are indifferent to the suffering of strangers. We break promises, tell lies, and act hypocritically. We take for granted and hurt the ones we love.

Of course, our propensity for sinful behavior does not mean that we are only capable of depravity. Indeed, most of the time we follow the moral standards of our communities in an unreflective, straightforward fashion. And we are certainly capable of deep compassion and heroic self-sacrifice. But our spiritual imperfection means that we all have an inherent potential to stray from a righteous path, especially during extreme conditions like warfare, political instability, poverty, and economic depression. This potential is universal and timeless, and exists within men and women, rich and poor, traditional and modern, educated and illiterate, believer and skeptic alike. The exact nature of our vices, and the extent to which they impact other people, might vary according to our social positions (a prince’s failings can cause greater harm than a pauper’s), but corruptibility is something we all share.

Imagining human beings as sinners makes sense of the paradoxical views of humanity offered by the rationalist and normative paradigms while overcoming their limitations. This perspective incorporates the normative paradigm’s insight that people care about upholding the standards of appropriateness of their communities, but sheds the naïve expectation that they will almost automatically abide by these standards. This perspective also accepts the rationalist paradigm’s premise that people often engage in aberrant, self-serving action. However, while the rationalist paradigm suggests that people pursue their own satisfaction without considering the normative implications of their behavior, the view of humans as sinners recognizes that people generally aspire towards decency, even if they are sometimes susceptible to moral breakdown. Eschewing firm a priori assumptions about people’s inclination towards normatively appropriate behavior, the spiritual paradigm I propose starts from acknowledging our demonstrated capacity for both upstanding and immoral behavior. A social science research program built upon such a vision of humanity would aim to investigate the social conditions under which people engage in different types of behavior – virtuous and vicious – and draw upon this knowledge to design policies that will better confront the most lasting and pernicious social problems.

An inadequate understanding of humankind’s spiritual character can lead to two types of problems that have plagued modern attempts to shape our societies for the better. First, we often craft policies that rest on naïve assumptions about human nature, and which could only work in practice if we were saints rather than sinners. For instance, a laissez faire approach to economic regulation stems from the notion that allowing people to freely pursue their economic self-interest leads the economy to thrive. But this position underestimates the extent to which economic actors, left unchecked, are prone to greedy or shortsighted behavior that can harm society as a whole. The current financial crisis resulted from the creation of high-risk financial instruments that led consumers to take on mortgages they could not afford and companies to over-invest in dubious mortgage-backed securities. These policies enriched the finance industry and expanded the ranks of homeowners in the short-term, but the bursting of the housing bubble led to an epidemic of foreclosures, a stock market crash, a drying up of credit, and a global economic recession.

The policy of abstinence-only sex education is another case in which the likelihood of virtue is overestimated. This policy relies on the sexual restraint of young people to reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections among teenagers. Such programs have been found to be ineffective because they fail to appreciate the difficulty of resisting the temptation to engage in risky sexual behavior for even the most steadfast advocates of abstinence. These examples suggest that policies too dependent on the proper behavior of those involved will tend not to be very successful.

A second problem deriving from our inadequate understanding of human nature is our tendency to divide the world into rigid categories of those who are righteous and those who are wicked, often succumbing to the hubristic assumption that God is on our side. Rather than recognizing that we are all equal in our potential for moral failure, we forget our own sinfulness, with the ironic result that those most ostensibly committed to social progress along Enlightenment principles can be guilty of the most brutal inhumanity.

Idealistic political movements have frequently illustrated such a dynamic. The French Revolution, for instance, produced the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789, proclaiming liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression to be natural rights. Just a few years later, Robespierre’s Committee for Public Safety launched a program of arbitrary executions to protect the revolutionary government from the perceived threat of internal enemies, an absurd blasphemy of the Revolution’s foundational principles. Similarly, the vanguard of the Bolshevik Revolution viewed itself as leading the world towards a communist future that would eradicate inequality and establish the conditions for universal human flourishing. Yet this project devolved into a paranoid police state that imprisoned and executed millions of kulaks, Cossacks, and other class enemies for the sake of the unquestionably righteous Revolution.

As casual observers of history, we tend to attribute such atrocities to the uncommonly evil character of the key figures involved: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. But such horrors as chattel slavery, colonialism, the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and the Darfur crisis are not simply the work of a single monstrous leader or a few bad apples. They require many hands, and arise from an all-too-human capacity to inflict harm on others, to be overcome with hatred, to turn a blind eye to suffering and injustice – in short, to be inhumane. The urge to dissociate ourselves from such evils is powerful, as we like to think of ourselves as good people, incapable of such savagery. But the history of human suffering is the story of allegedly good people doing terrible things to each other. Thus, we must accept any sin committed by another person as potentially one of our own.

Treading a righteous path – as individuals, as corporations, as nations – is difficult, but certainly not impossible. Bringing our aspirations for values like equality, liberty, and peace closer to fruition requires not just technical knowledge, but also attention to how the spiritual character of human beings shapes the implementation and effectiveness of policy initiatives. When we acknowledge the darker aspects of our nature, the design of policies becomes a matter of identifying and protecting against the sources of temptation we may face.

The structure of American political institutions might serve to illustrate a well-crafted policy in this regard. Wary of the concentration of power in the hands of any one entity, the drafters of American institutions dispersed authority among three distinct branches of government. While members of each branch have worked to enhance their own power, the separation of powers ensures an ongoing wrangling between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, the result being that no one branch can accumulate absolute authority. Instead of trusting political actors to refrain from power seeking, the founders anticipated the temptation to extend one’s reach and devised mechanisms to check that tendency. In this way, democratic rule has survived for over two centuries.

The modern social sciences offer an impressive array of techniques for acquiring systematic knowledge about human societies. But scientific knowledge will not lead the world on a linear march of progress if not coupled with an honest and accurate reckoning of human nature. Turning with humility to the insights into the human spirit offered by religious traditions may be the best way to appreciate and temper the shortcomings we have shared from the beginning.

P. Geoffrey Bakken is PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Wisconsin.

These views reflect a shallow understanding of faith and religion as well as the reality of the scientific enterprise. In this article we argue that there are varying degrees of certainty in each piece of scientific and religious knowledge. One can thus imagine two fields of certainty where established knowledge is at the center and the less certain pieces of knowledge form field-like circles around a center. We further argue that this perspective can serve as a unifying paradigm for science and religion.

Science and Religion as Disciplines of Different Realms

The superficial understanding of science and religion as disciplines of different realms asserts that religion concerns the relationship of humanity with the divine and considers human relation-ships on this basis. Religion primarily relies on sacred scriptures and subjective experiences as sources of knowledge. Religious assertions tend to be absolute and they do not accept questioning. The main underlying assumption of religion is the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent Being referred to as God. Science, on the other hand, deals primarily with observable and measurable phenomena. Thus, its main domain is the domain of physical objects. It accepts systematic and objective observations or experimental findings, and inferences on these as sources of knowledge. Scientific assertions appear as theoretical models that attempt to provide objective descriptions of the physical world and predictions of natural phenomena. Science is ambivalent to the existence of a supernatural Being. The underlying assumption of science is that the physical world is governed by universal laws, regardless of the source. This perspective can be summarized in a table:

Based on this superficial understanding of religion and science, we can expect two disjoint spheres of interest that would not have much to do with each other, as illustrated in the figure above.

In this view, science and religion occupy different realms. This view gives complete sovereignty over the non-human domain to science. It leaves the unobservable phenomena to religion, with the condition that it might be claimed by science at any time. The current state of the relationship, however, refutes this simplistic perspective. Both science and religion make assertions that supposedly belong to the other and we perceive conflicts. Examples of perceived conflicts include the following:

– Spherical Earth vs. flat Earth.

– Sun-centric vs. Earth-centric cosmology or astronomy.

– Old universe or Earth vs. young universe or Earth.

– Evolution vs. the miraculous creation of animals and humans.

– A world-wide flood.

– …

We can illustrate the perceived conflict in figure two.

Both the simplistic views of science and religion, as well as their perceived conflicts, are due to shallow understandings of scientific and religious knowledge. Let us first examine the idealized scientific process as the source of the scientific knowledge. The idealized view of the scientific process as taught at many schools is illustrated in the figure below: In this view, the process starts when the scientist makes an observation or becomes aware of a phenomenon that they can not explain with their current knowledge. They first define the problem clearly and hypothesize about potential explanations. They then design experiments to test this hypothesis. They conduct those experiments and make observations. An analysis of these observations may produce one of two outcomes: Either the proposed explanation is valid or invalid. If the proposed explanation is found to be invalid totally or partially, it is refined and a new cycle of experiments and observation is started. If at one point the hypothesis is validated, then the results are communicated to the scientific community. Other scientists repeat the same or similar experiments with the same goal: Validating the hypothesis. If other scientists also reach the same conclusions then the hypothesis gains certainty and may eventually be viewed as an established theory. An important yardstick for the formation of a new theory is its predictive power. When the theory is young, it is used to make predictions. When these predictions turn out to be accurate then the theory establishes itself. Otherwise it is refined and a new cycle of experiments and observation starts.

While the idealized process of scientific research appeals as an objective means of building knowledge, it suffers from some important weaknesses: The first one is that real scientists rarely follow this idealized procedure. Even when they do, many human factors, such as prejudices and non-scientific concerns, for example, material gain and reputation may interfere with the objective interpretation of the results. A third, and possibly the most important limitation, is that many subjects are infeasible or impossible to study under idealized conditions. Consider the theory of evolution for instance. It is impossible to re-create the conditions on the Earth at the time when life first appeared on its surface. It is impossible to observe generation after generation of creatures and to observe whether evolution really took place. What we can do instead is to examine the available fossil record, the Earth’s surface and make logical inferences. But as we move away from the systematic and repeatable observation or controlled experiments, our confidence in our knowledge decreases. Hence we witness a plethora of perspectives and explanations, even among believers of the Darwinian evolution, of what really took place. Generalizing from this example, we can see that the various pieces of so-called “scientific” knowledge are not at the same level in terms of their certainty. Instead, they form a field of certainty, like circles around a center, where the most certain pieces of knowledge are located. Moving away from the center, the amount of control over experimental conditions and the repeat-ability of observations decrease as does confidence in the knowledge. The following figure illustrates this concept of certainty fields for scientific knowledge.

The confidence field phenomenon is not limited to scientific knowledge. Revelation forms the basis of religious knowledge, but revelation is conveyed to humanity via messengers, their scriptures, their inspirations, their words, and conduct. While the revelation itself is not subject to uncertainty, the human factor introduces uncertainty mainly in three mechanisms:

1. The deterioration or intentional manipulation of certain religious sources.

2. Human misunderstanding or misrepresentation of certain divine statements.

3. Confusion of human interpretation with the literal revelation or prophetic tradition.

Upon considering the certainty fields of science and religion we can look back at the perceived conflict between them. Now we realize that the perceived conflicts lie at those places where either the scientific or the religious knowledge, or both, are not completely certain in their assertions. When we enumerate all of the perceived conflicts and examine them carefully, we can attribute each one to one of the causes of uncertainty in scientific or religious knowledge.

Let’s take the example of the theory of evolution again as a popular and contemporary matter. On the science side we see that many of the assertions of the theory carry a high degree of uncertainty. We are definitely not at the center of the certainty field of scientific knowledge. On the religious side, the clear assertion is that God is the creator of the Heavens and the Earth, as well as its inhabitants. The way by which God has chosen to create, however, is not as clear. We don’t know, for instance, whether God also works through a mechanism that includes evolutionary elements. Some believing scientists argue that God works through what they call “micro evolution” to adapt or eliminate certain species. Some evolutionists, on the other hand, refer to a concept of “lucky accidents” to explain certain aspects of evolutionary history that cannot be explained within the framework of blind chance and natural selection.

As another example we can consider the perceived conflicts in social sciences. Certain sociologists or psychologists make assertions that seem to contradict religious positions. Again on the science side, when the subjects of interest are humans, it is extremely difficult to control all the factors that are involved. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible to have repeatable experiments. Since no human being is an exact replica of another and no society is exactly like another society, it is very hard to repeat any experiment in psychology or sociology. Finally, it is very hard to observe humans without affecting their behavior. Because of this and for similar reasons, some scientists have debated whether psychology and sociology can truly be classified as sciences. But these two disciplines are not alone in having difficulties in studying subject matters with the scientific method. A number of essential questions of personal and social life fall into this category of phenomena that are hard to explore scientifically.

These examples demonstrate that each of the perceived conflicts of science and religion can be attributed to one of the causes of uncertainty in scientific or religious knowledge.

An interesting question that falls under the topic of science-religion is the view of science from a religious perspective. Islamic sources include an interesting view: The “two books of God paradigm.”

The Two Books of God Paradigm

According to Islamic sources, the universe and the revealed scriptures are the expressions of the same God in two different languages, the cosmic language and the human language. While the languages are different, the messages are the same.

According to this paradigm, essentially the same messages are expressed in different forms. The book in the human language sometimes comments on the book in the cosmic language and helps us understand it better. Let us give some examples of messages encoded in these two different languages:

The first message is the unity and omnipotence of the Creator of the Universe. The name and attributes of the Creator of the universe are the main theme of the Qur’an. Faithful scientists and science enthusiasts find this message clearly expressed in the cosmic language.

The second message is found the creation of the Earth and the cosmic objects in a way to provide for the human life on Earth. The Qur’an declares that Adam was created as God’s vicegerent on Earth and the Earth, together with its creatures were made subservient to him, subject to God’s commandments. Again, persons of faith see clear signs of this phenomenon on the Earth, as pointed out in numerous articles in this publication. Our subconscious tells us that the One who has provided us with so many bounties and gifts obviously expects appreciation and gratitude from us. Again, both books clearly point out this fact.

The third message is the display of God’s beautiful names in human beings. According to both Judeo-Christian and Islamic belief, humans were created from a single pair: Adam and Eve. They are thus brothers and sisters and nobody has a claim to superiority, except in virtue and piety. Furthermore, each human is like a mirror reflecting God’s beautiful names. In the perfect design of the human body and face we can observe the names The Most Beautiful and The All-Wise, among others. In the meeting of our various needs through wonderful sustenance, we can observe the names the All-Benevolent and the All-Compassionate.

How Religion and Science Might Benefit from One Another

The last dimension of the relationship between science and religion that we would like to discuss is how the study of one might benefit from the other. In his Twentieth Word (Second Station) Bediuzzaman Said Nursi lists many examples from the Qur’anic references to scientific advances like train, electricity, and states that miracles of the Prophets as well as historical events allude to future inventions and thus might inspire scientists to work in those directions. Thus, religious sources can provide direction and goals for scientific research. Another important problem in science is the question of ethics.

The scientific method itself is unable to produce its own ethical principles as it does not assume absolute truths to exist. Without an external reference, the scientific approach to the generation of ethical principles has to examine each of the plausible options and try them out. This, however, might have some serious consequences. In the process of trying out ethical principles many humans and animals might be hurt. Science, therefore, needs an external source of guidance in the definition and implementation of ethical scientific procedures.

Religious study can also benefit from science in two ways: The first way was alluded to by the “two books paradigm” above. By way of scientific investigation, a believer has the opportunity to appreciate the omnipotence and other beautiful names of God much better than an unbeliever person. Thus, the study of the universe helps increase and deepen our faith.

The second way science can benefit religious understanding is through encouraging common people to base their faith on stronger foundations. By acquiring skills of systematic observation, sound reasoning, and methods of inquiry, both religious scholars and lay people can enhance the strength of their faith and reduce superstition. Science and true religion, hand in hand, can work on eliminating blind faith and blind rejection.

Conclusion

We have touched upon several aspects of the relationship between science and religion. We began by questioning the simplistic views of science and religion and showed that they cannot be regarded as disciplines of totally different domains. We have provided a framework, called the “certainty fields,” which may help explain the perceived conflicts between science and religion. The “two books paradigm” was provided as an example of a paradigm where science and religion do not merely coexist, but also complement each other. Finally we have mentioned two ways whereby scientific and religious inquiry can benefit each other. The reader will no doubt appreciate the vastness of these topics and the need for further study. We have tried to provide pointers and resources for the interested readers. When understood properly and practiced harmoniously, science and religion can open doors to human achievement, spiritual as well as materi-al, that were unheard of in the past.

References

• Nursi, S., The Words, Kaynak, Izmir: 1997.
• Smith, H., Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World’s Religions, Harper, San Fransisco: 1993.
• Shakir, M., The Qur’an Translation, Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, 1999.

In describing how an effective person should concentrate his or her efforts in the right jungle, Covey uses the concept of mission, a term from the study of management of long-term business strategy meaning a statement of a company’s vision of what it intends to do and become. In the context of this book, Covey urges people to come up with personal mission statements. The objective-setting criteria used in making such statements should be based on long-term, changeless, and established rules. By way of example, the author points out the United States Constitution which has remained unchanged in its fundamentals for over two hundred years. Human nature requires a changeless inner core for people to be effective – it is much easier to hit a stable target than a moving one. (This might be one among many reasons why the Divine revelations (of which the Qur’an is the last) were sent down to guide mankind for centuries.)

The book is divided into four parts. The first part deals with personal mission or in the author’s words principle-centred paradigm. He uses the term paradigm to mean a model, perception, assumption, or frame of reference. Paradigms are powerful because they constitute the lens through which we see the world. The principle-centred paradigm is based on the idea that there are principles or natural laws that govern human effectiveness which he calls GANLs or Generally Accepted Natural Laws. These laws are just as real and stable as the law of gravity in the physical world. They are guidelines for human conduct that are proven to have enduring, even permanent and fundamental value, such as fairness, integrity, honesty, human dignity, service, quality, etc. He says that the more closely the principle-centred paradigms are aligned with the GANLs, the more accurate and functional they will become. What he does not explicitly conclude in this part is the origin of the GANLs. Although the manifestation or definition of the GANLs is said to be left to the reader, one who ponders on the author’s approach and style will easily understand that he implies Divine revelation as the origin. In several instances throughout his book, Covey implicitly justifies the teachings of the Divine revelations which are fundamentally from the same Source in the different monotheistic religions. One who has a sound background in Islam, for example, would easily recognize the similarities. Covey explains himself somewhat at the end of the book under the rubric of A Personal Note. It is interesting to learn that the GANLs or fundamental, universal and intangible rules of social interactions can be justified by reasoning (as realized by Covey in his book) and these are welcomed by people who are hungry for ethics and a restoration of character in their lives.

The other parts of the book explain the 7 habits referred to in the title. They are, in the order the author prefers:

1. Be proactive,
2. Begin with end [i.e. your objective] in mind,
3. Put first things first,
4. Think win/win,
5. Seek first to understand, then to be understood,
6. Synergize,
7. Sharpen the saw, or self-renewal.

Covey concentrates on the first three habits in Part 11. Successful accomplishment of Habits I, II and III is called by the author ‘a Private Victory’. Habit I (being proactive) is recommended as the basic principle of the nature of effective man. Proactive people are driven by values – carefully thought about, selected and internalized principles – rather than by external circumstances and conditions, which characterizes reactive people. Proactive people take the initiative to act in accordance with their paradigms in their circle of concerns through the means that they can be influential with. He states that the very essence of developing proactivity is to make and keep commitments to ourselves and to set a goal and work to achieve it. Another interesting observation in this section is that proactive people focus their time and energy on things that they can do something about (Circle of Influence) whereas reactive people concentrate their efforts on things over which they have no control. The degree of proactivity is then determined by how much effort we expend on our Circle of Influence.

Covey has in fact – not surprisingly, seeing that he is an adjunct-professor at the School of Management – applied organizational success theories found in management literature to the ‘management’ of individual lives. In conformity with an academic text-book style, he lists application suggestions at the end of each chapter inviting the reader to put the preceding material into real life by doing the ‘exercises’.

The introduction to Habit II (begin with end in mind) is dramatic: it invites the reader to visualize his/her death. Explaining that it is possible to be very busy without being very effective (active in the wrong jungle), the author goes on:

‘The most fundamental application of “begin with end in mind” is to begin today with the image, picture, or paradigm at the end of your life as your frame of reference or the criterion by which everything else is examined…

To begin with the end in mind means to start with a clear understanding of your destination. It means to know-where you are going so that you better understand where you are now and so that the steps you take are always in the right direction.’

Covey then lists some motivational factors or ‘centres of life’ that a person might have, such as spouse, family, money, work, possession, pleasure, friend/enemy, etc. For instance, one extremely common centre to most people’s lives is making money. This kind of people are always vulnerable to anything that threatens their economic security. After logically showing inner dimensions of each possible centre, he encourages centring our lives on timeless, unchanging principles so as to reach a fundamental paradigm of effective living. The method he suggests to make this shift is the visualization of one’s own funeral which expands one’s perspective. The analogy with the practice in most major religious traditions, not least in Islam, of meditating on the end of one’s life hardly needs to be pointed out.

Habit III of Private Victory (put first things first), concerned with organizing and executing priorities, is developed from the most recent time management techniques.

People with proactive attitudes can easily focus on important but not urgent activities which is the heart of effective personal management. Reactive people, on the other hand, exhaust their energies on crises, pressing problems and deadline-driven projects, which are the main obstacles to managing one’s time and energy properly.

Part III introduces the habits of Public Victory. People armed with Private Victory habits move from a state of dependence to a state of independence. It is the Habits IV, V and VI which convert one’s state from independence to interdependence and which leads to optimum co-operative-ness, teamwork and communication among members of groups or organizations. The author’s diligent explanation of Emotional Bank Account, described as the amount of trust that has been built up in a relationship, brings up a new perspective to intra-community GANLs for a healthy organization or group. Understanding the individual, attending to the little things, keeping commitments, clarifying expectations, avoiding gossip, defending those who are absent, etc., are just some of the ‘deposits’ to this account needed to achieve sincere and profound relations within an organization.

Habit IV lays the foundation of human interactions that should be carried out through mutually beneficial and satisfying agreements or solutions. Win/Win in this sense recognizes life as a co-operative not a competitive arena. Win/Lose manner of thinking, the most common among people, is fundamentally flawed. Covey argues that people with abundance mentality (the approach that there is plenty out there for everybody) think Win/Win, whereas those with scarcity mentality (the approach that there is only one pie out there) think Win/Lose. The author touches upon a very fundamental law for success in this life, both materially and spiritually: good faith or intention. Good faith is praised by religions over actions and all present man-made laws recognize the concept of bona fide (in good faith) arrangements. People with good faith always think and act Win/Win and they will always be the winners in the end.

Habit V (seek first to understand, then to be understood) is, according to the author, the single most important principle in the field of interpersonal communication and relations. As he does throughout his book, he cites real world examples from his own experiences to show that when one presents one’s own ideas clearly, specifically, visually, and most important, contextually – in the context of a deep understanding of the other party’s paradigms and concerns – one significantly increases the credibility of those ideas and the effectiveness of the interaction.

Habit VI (synergize) is simply defined by the author to mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. He makes an analogy between ecology in physical nature and synergism in the nature of human interaction – everything is related to everything else. The essence of synergy in a group or organization is to value the differences, to respect them,to build on strengths, and to compensate for weaknesses. Covey points out that the more genuine the involvement, the more sincere and sustained the participation of individuals in analyzing and solving their shared problems. He also claims that it is this synergy that has led to the Japanese success in business.

Habit VII (sharpen the saw or self renewal) is the renewing of the following four dimensions of human nature: physical (exercise, nutrition, stress management), spiritual (value clarification and commitment, study and meditation), mental (reading, visualizing, planning, writing) and social/emotional (service, empathy, synergy).

This book reveals the recent global trend to inspire and motivate people for ethics and restoration of character in personal and professional lives. Rather than trying to provide a short-term, quick solution for the problem, Covey tries to concentrate on the fundamental questions of who we are, where we are coming from and where we are headed to. From a different perspective, the author proves, justifies and elaborates the necessity of complying with the natural laws, of which the source, as he implies at the end of his book is the Creator.

This review has touched only lightly on the similarities between the author’s conclusions and the paradigm prescribed by the last Divine religion revealed fourteen centuries ago. Alert readers of the book with moderate and informed Islamic background will easily identify many more similarities and indeed specific correspondences in the texts of Qur’an and Hadith. The general point worth making is that a contemporary explanation of the universal and fundamental principles revealed centuries ago can still make a big impact on people’s lives even in the countries where religion has long been neglected:

Covey’s book has been a bestseller. This indicates that proper presentation of Divine principles in the modern world by word and example is welcomed and can encourage and motivate people, through a different path and approach, to revive their lifestyles in the light of true, sound, changeless and inspiring Divine principles.

But does religion, as the atheists claim, really conflict with science? We can tackle the question in the context of biology. Out of all sciences biology would appear to have the nearest contact with religion because it concerns ‘life’.

Man is, of all living creatures, the most complex and perfect organism. It is man who discovered science and knowledge and it is he who advances it. The first thing that even the earliest man must have been curious about is his own existence as a living creature. There is a something – which we do not know the nature of which distinguishes all living creatures from other existing entities like minerals, rocks, water etc. But all living creatures – men, animals, plants – have this something in common.

It seems reasonable to believe that all living beings are therefore subject to the same law. The Ruler who enforces this law, manifests His power among the living creatures distinctively through His different attributes or names. He who has introduced Himself to us by His personal name, Allah, also reveals His many other names. Among these, Hayy probably has a certain priority; it means the ‘life-giver’. Then, names like Rezzaq – the provider of needs – Musavvir who depicts, shapes and forms – Hafiz the protector, keeper – Mucemmil who creates perfectly and designs beautifully, and so on.

Many non-believers have tried to offer a rational, ‘scientific’ explanation for the original transition form inorganic matter to organic life form. But science is also subject to relativity. Philosophers, scientists – from ancient Greece to today’s biology theorists – have written hundreds of books and contrived many theories about how life began, but that is all they have ever been able to do – offer theories and speculations. They have taken a roundabout route because, up to now no-one has come up with an explanation contrary to the reality of the Qur’an.

The act of creation and giving life belongs only to God. It has not been and will not be explained otherwise. Qur’an, the last holy book, unlike the other holy books, has preserved and protected its originality. One evidence of its superiority to all philosophies and theories is that not one of the accepted hypotheses conflicts with the realities of the Qur’an.

It is encouraging that today many scientists believe that religion has the main role in explaining creation. The biology theorists in particular are trying to build new explanations for the origin of life in accordance with religion.

Despite the great developments in fields like genetic engineering, molecular biology, DNA and immunology, scientists have still not been able to close the immense gap between organic and inorganic matter. ‘Life’ remains the biggest miracle in the universe. False theories like Darwinism and other evolution theories that refuse to accept the miracle of creation are collapsing one after another.

Heinsberg’s theory of ‘indeterminism’ in quantum mechanics, smashed materialism completely, in particular the stubborn notion of ‘cause’ and ‘result’. Later the American philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn, put forward the argument that there are not, and cannot be, any final scientific theories. This is true as, throughout history, we have witnessed that almost all theories have lost their ‘truth’ and been replaced by new theories.

A paradigm, as Kuhn calls it, or a way of seeing, dominates every branch of science for a certain period and then gives way to a new one. According to Kuhn, there is no perfect paradigm in any branch of science. For example a group of researchers begin to work in a certain field within their own paradigm, using their own special methods. In time, an explanation in this field becomes accepted by most or all scientists. Then, the researchers who believe strongly in this paradigm try to develop it as far as they can. Then begins a period of solving problems and riddles, in which the researchers proceed to new discoveries within the boundaries of the paradigm. Kuhn says that this is a stage in which scientific progress is made without cuts. After a while, however, the researchers come face to face with new data which conflict with their paradigm, precisely because all paradigms have certain boundaries. For this reason, there is no paradigm into which you can fit the whole of scientific knowledge at any one time. Arguments amongst the scientists about the data that do not fit the paradigm continue until someone comes up with a new paradigm that can cope with the new data.

So far, all theories, put forward as paradigms, have only explained part of the reality or facts. These paradigms have not all been completely wrong, but they have never been completely right either. For example, certain natural phenomena can still be explained with the physics of Aristotle, while most of the time we use Newton’s laws or, in some situations, Einstein’s theory of relativity. And as regards biology, there are some cases where even Darwin was right.

However, man cannot close his eyes to the reality of creation, as a whole and like an ostrich bury his head in the sand.

The famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper, has a different view on the matter. He measures the health of a theory by checking whether it has too many gaps or missing links, or not. On this ground he states emphatically that ‘Darwinism is not a scientific theory’.

What we can derive from Popper’s ideas or Kuhn’s theory of paradigms is that reality cannot be fully explained by scientific knowledge. Science can only shine a light on some few of the hidden facts of the universe.

Nicholas Maxwell thinks that science will not advance only by increasing the number of experiments for each theory. To explain the purity and the beauty of nature, scientists have to offer theories as pure and as perfect as nature itself. Is it possible to come up with a theory like this? Does man have to push the reality of creation aside – which brings an explanation of everything – to get lost in the mazes of the theories?

The Qur’an explains the origin of life, the ecological balance in nature, the development of the embryo and many other facts so perfectly, that any biologist who reads it must place his head on the ground to worship God.

We expect all scientists to read and respect the Qur’an, because, up to now, no one has proved the knowledge it contains to be wrong. The Qur’an is the word of God and cannot he wrong.