Differentiate superstitions from scientific beliefs

Answer 1

Superstition is an irrational belief that is deeply held, even in the absence of evidence, and that always causes some degree of anxiety when it plays out [situations for example where you have no alternative but to walk under a ladder, or step on a crack-- and then something horrible happens!]. Superstitions are inner convictions about how the world operates, and they are hard to overcome. Even though they may lead to some anxiety, they are ways for us to experience consistency in the world, and sometimes it is easier for us to want our superstitions to be 'true' [yes, once again I see that the world is consistent] than it is to give them up [I'm free of that, and now open to new possibilities].

In very simple terms science is the accumulation of knowledge, sometimes slow and laborious, based on observation and the manipulating of variables in order to see what affects what. As time goes on, a more and more consistent view of the physical world develops, and scientific beliefs can be used to explore and develop new areas of technology.

A Little More Exploring

The distinction between the two seems at first to be complete and unambiguous, doesn't it? But a sharp distinction between superstition and scientific belief really may not be possible. The way humans believe is not neatly divided into these two categories. Superstition is a kind of magical thinking where a person is convinced that taboo behaviors somehow force something bad to happen. There is hardly a person, however scientific he may think himself to be, who is totally free from even the slightest degree of superstition. Try any of the following to test this out: put your shoes and socks on in the order different from usual. Change the order of your morning rituals-- brush first then shave, change the way you shower-- and notice what happens. There is some tug on you that doing things out of their 'proper' order will result in something bad or uncomfortable. Take as an example someone who experiences 'bad luck' when a black cat crosses his path. You might develop an experiment where you will randomly make a black cat cross his path, even with his knowledge, in an attempt to prove to him that the superstition is nonsense. But the superstition is like an 'inner engine', and the person will see to it (not consciously) that there will be 'bad luck' each time the cat crosses his path. So, for him, superstition is supported by repeated experimentation!

'Scientific belief' on the other hand should refer to knowledge that has been theorized and repeatedly tested out. But clearly not everything we do and believe has come under the scrutiny of the 'scientific method'. It would be absurd for us to require scientific backing for every step we take and every move we make. We can just be 'reasonable' about how we approach things. It sometimes surprises us to learn that one of our pet 'scientific beliefs' is really urban legend, and to discover how hard it is to give up one of these beliefs in favor of something more supportable. We've all experienced this kind of 'clash in the head' when we learn that something we have comfortably assumed for a long time is, in fact, not true. The history of science highlights many times when world views have abruptly changed, and adherents to the older theory fought tooth-and-nail to maintain their ways of thinking, even though they clearly represented what had become irrational thinking.

This leads us to consider that science, however lofty one thinks of it as the source of the highest levels of objective truth, may have some element of superstition in it, just as the guy with the black cat superstition can say that his superstition has some element of 'science' in it.

The bottom line is that while superstition and scientific belief are different in some ways, they also share some interesting and very human things in common. They involve an investment of personal energy in advancing a certain world view. A superstitious person will see the world and operate in the world within the limits of his world view. A scientist might approach certain questions because there is a personal investment in the importance of the work, to the exclusion of the work of others, sometimes. Both individuals might be operating out of a set of false or flawed assumptions, all based on what is going on inside. "I'm convinced that this is the way the world is, so obviously my set of observations (not that other person's) are really the important ones, and so the questions I come up with are really going to get to the heart of the matter."

This investment of personal energy is really the uniting factor, and the thing that should make everyone humble about being sure of one's knowledge. The best approach is to be willing to question everything, and not get too bothered when a pet theory or belief is challenged or debunked.