Central to the scientific method is the creation of theories. Ideally, a scientist observes the facts pertaining to an aspect of reality under examination and then proposes a theory to explain its workings. The scientist first observes and then explains what s/he observes. Now, if I was a physicist examining a photographic plate from a particle accelerator experiment the fact that Nelson's column is in Trafalgar Square is not pertinent to the analysis of the experimental results. Therefore, it must be said that the scientist does not so much analyze all the facts s/he observes, s/he must analyze only those facts that are pertinent to his/her area of investigation. Of course, the question as to which facts are pertinent and those which are not is not simply a matter of the whim of the scientist; truth considerations are a considerable factor.
It is simplistic to say that a scientist observes all the facts and then proposes a theory to explain them. S/he must, of course, delete those facts that are irrelevant. But a scientist who deletes observed facts willy nilly in order to bolster a pet theory is guilty of fraudulent science. Most science does not fit neatly into either "good science" or "bad science" categories. Some theories may prove extremely successful for a long time and then new information, new observed facts, demonstrates their limitations. Just as "one swallow does not make a summer", one, or even more than one, anomalous fact does not cause a tried and tested theory to be discarded. The anomaly is noted and the scientific community ponders on its implications. In general, they seek to explain this fact within the context of the existing theory. But experiments are designed to examine the area of reality in and around the anomalous fact.
Suppose a new aspect of reality is then discovered. A new theory is required to explain the mechanisms of this aspect of reality. The problem is that the new theory does not just drop out of the sky. It requires the insight of a great scientist to develop a coherent understanding of the "old" facts and the "anomalous" facts from a new perspective.
We are all naive scientists. We observe the world around us and then seek to understand it; to integrate experience. I would assert that most of the higher animals experience the world around them in, broadly speaking, just as rich a manner as humans but that humans possess a significantly more developed capacity to reflect on and understand this experience than even the other higher primates. We experience and we then seek to understand this experience. While we cannot experience everything, we have a duty to the Truth not to blind ourselves to aspects of reality that do not conform to our preconceptions.
Albert Einstein never reconciled himself to quantum mechanics because it predicts degrees of probability and not certainties. "God does not play dice," Einstein was said to have remarked to Niels Bohr, to which Bohr was said to have replied: "Albert, stop telling God what to do."
The best theory available to explain the workings of the atomic nucleus was repugnant to Einstein's preconceptions as to how things aught to work. The scientific community mostly hold that Einstein wasted his talents during the later part of his life in trying to develop a workable theoretical framework that would explain nuclear physics in narrow deterministic, as opposed to probability, terms.
The truth is rarely what we might like it to be, just because we would like it to be that way. While all humans have prejudices, it is the duty of all men and women of good faith to allow those preconceptions to be challenged by new experiences and knowledge thus creating new and more useful mind-sets.
The truth is pleasing to God. That none of us possesses a monopoly on this truth is an uncontroversial aspect of Unitarian culture. Freedom, Reason and Tolerance are principles which "sit well" with the scientific method and it's mechanisms for seeking to expand and refine the sorts of knowledge that are appropriate to its sphere of influence.
Perhaps the committed Unitarian should be a "scientist" in the broad sense of the word in his/her constant revision of that which s/he takes to be true by the learning process that is life itself and the revisions of his/her preconceptions that this process entails.
Brendan Burke MA (Phil) Cork May 2006.