When someone asks the question “What is science?”, I often refer to the ideas of the Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper, who wrote that a for an idea to be part of science, it must be falsifiable. That is, the idea must be such that you can form an experiment to show if the idea is false. For example, you can propose the scientific idea (or hypothesis) that when you let go of a ball, gravity will always pull it straight down to the ground. If this idea were false, the ball would follow a different trajectory such as a curved path to the ground or go straight up. You can test this idea by repeatedly dropping a ball. If, after 100 drops, you do not see the ball do something besides go straight down, you can argue that you have failed to falsify the idea that the ball will only fall straight down. Therefore, you would be inclined to accept the hypothesis that gravity will only pull dropped balls straight down. Generally speaking, after a hypothesis has been tested by many people, all of whom fail to falsify it, it becomes a theory. (Note, I am ignoring the effect of the Coriolis force, which will cause your ball to take a slightly curved path. In practice, however, this will not be noticed for normal balls.)

One disadvantage about using science as the center of your belief system is that science never says what is definitively true. Instead, our ideas (our theories) are conditionally true. We accept them until we can find evidence to the contrary. When new evidence arises, we  must alter our belief system. This level of uncertainty in a belief system may not sit well with some people, however, as many people may prefer belief systems with permanence. I will try to argue here that belief in conditionally true science is actually a good thing.

In law and business, there is a term called a living document. This refers to a document that is often edited and updated, as new information is discovered. Science is like a living document. Instead of the rigid, textbook formalism taught in schools, where Science is a set of laws discovered by people long since deceased, it is much better to think of science as a living document of ideas that have failed to be falsified. In other words, science is a living document of theories that have been shown to make accurate predictions of our universe. Over time, many researchers conducting many experiments have given us ample empirical evidence to believe in these theories.

The beauty of thinking of science as a living document is that it gives us both flexibility of change and the comfort of mountains of empirical evidence. For example, there is no reason to say that Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity is the final answer to gravity and no one is allowed to challenge it. It is perfectly acceptable to allow the possibility of another, greater theory of physics that can explain General Relativity and even more aspects of the universe (such as, say, quantum mechanics). The living document of science is wonderfully flexible.

And on the other hand, the living document of science is filled with the empirical evidence gather by scientists over hundreds of years. For example, ever since Charles Darwin proposed the Theory of Natural Selection, scientists from different fields of science have contributed mountains of evidence for supporting this idea. Geological evidence shows the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old. The fossil record shows an enormous variety of organisms that have lived and gone extinct. The discovery of DNA has given us the language of evolution. Although science gives us the flexibility for another explanation, the living document of science is overflowing with evidence supporting Natural Selection, making alternative views exceedingly unlikely.

In a way, science resembles Zeno’s (Dichotomy) Paradox. With every movement in the paradox, we cover half the remaining distance to the goal. But even with an infinite number of movements, we will never reach the goal. The same is true with science, with every experiment or discovery, we get closer to the truth, but we will never get to absolute truth. The living document of science is like a Zeno’s Paradox pursuit to truth.

In contrast, religion generally does not take the living document approach. Most religions teach a set of principles, customs, and stories of origin without room for change or improvement. If you don’t like the beliefs in your religion, no matter how much conflict they create, there is no wiggle room to change the religion. At best, you can leave the religion and form a new religion. But the original religion stands firm. This is one big difference between science and religion. As a belief system where ideas are conditionally true, science has more flexibility than religion at adapting and changing to new discoveries about the world. Furthermore, the living document of science contains hundreds of years of empirical evidence to support its ideas. These characteristics make science both elegant and useful.

– Analytical Cortex