Chapter 1: The Essence of Doubt in Science

I recently came across an intriguing article by Gerald R. Baron that delves into the foundational assumptions of physicality in modern science. Baron argues that many scientists mistakenly assume there is no inherent purpose behind physical laws. He cites Charles Darwin's famous "horrid doubt" quote as a pivotal point in this discussion.

As a biologist focused on molecular genetics and biochemistry, particularly in yeast cell growth and division, I identify with the materialist perspective, which dismisses any underlying purpose in the physical world or its governing laws. While I find the philosophical discourse surrounding my work engaging, I often struggle to grasp its complexities—philosophy can be quite challenging!

My aim here is not to engage in philosophical debates, as I lack the necessary expertise. Instead, I wish to contextualize Darwin's expression of doubt, which I believe is frequently misinterpreted. His original quote was: "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

The False Dichotomy of Right and Wrong in Science

As one might expect from my background, I have read Darwin's On the Origin of Species twice, along with his two-part biography by Janet Browne. One of the remarkable aspects of Darwin's theory of evolution through variation and natural selection is how accurate he was, despite the limited knowledge available at the time. Simultaneously, he was often incorrect.

I recently addressed the simplistic notion of right and wrong in science in a post about the dating of mitochondrial Eve. Regardless of the inaccuracies in some of Darwin's specific ideas, his theory remains the cornerstone of contemporary biology. The fact that Darwin achieved such insight without the advantages of modern genetics or molecular biology highlights the remarkable contributions of the humanities. This is akin to Isaac Newton's groundbreaking laws of motion and gravity, which, although revolutionary, were later modified by Einstein's general relativity due to certain limitations.

No modern biologist considers Darwin's seminal work as the final word on evolution, and he is not blamed for the errors that have been addressed since his time. If such an astute scientist as Darwin could be mistaken on various points, how flawed might our own ideas be?

One significant revision to classical Darwinism came from Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge, who proposed the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis. This theory suggested that species remain stable for extended periods during environmental stability, only to undergo rapid evolution in response to significant changes—an idea supported by fossil evidence. This stands in stark contrast to Darwin's theory of gradual change, which lacked fossil support.

Interestingly, Punctuated Equilibrium itself is now being scrutinized and revised, illustrating the ongoing evolution of scientific thought.

The Role of Doubt in Scientific Inquiry

Ideally, scientists do not cling to outdated theories, regardless of their historical significance or the esteem of their originators. Science itself is an evolving process, whether through gradual change or punctuated shifts.

However, humans often become attached to their ideas, losing the ability to doubt. Young scientists may find it necessary to wait for the "old guard" to retire before their new ideas receive fair consideration. Those in power often favor established notions.

Doubt should not be seen as a flaw in science; rather, it should be viewed as an essential component of scientific inquiry and our daily lives. This inherent doubt can also be described as humility. While being paralyzed by doubt may indicate a neurosis, acting decisively despite uncertainty is crucial. Strategies such as continually gathering data and being willing to adapt based on findings are vital.

A key realization is that science is less about being right or wrong and more about the usefulness of a theory. If a theory accurately predicts future events, it retains its value; otherwise, it is modified or abandoned based on its alignment with reality. Human judgment often reduces ideas to binary values of right or wrong, but science is more analytical and detached.

Ultimately, a healthy sense of doubt underpins discussions about the utility and predictive capabilities of theories, ensuring that scientists remain open to new ideas and continue to progress.

Understanding Darwin's "Horrid Doubts"

Many misinterpret Darwin's quote about "horrid doubts." In 1881, William Graham criticized what he perceived as a religious conviction in Darwin's views on evolution in his book, The Creed of Science. In a letter to Graham, Darwin expressed his own doubts.

In that letter, dated July 3, 1881, Darwin wrote: "… there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this..." He continued, "But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

The crux of Darwin's argument is that he did not perceive any purpose behind natural laws. After articulating this point, he acknowledged his own limitations in understanding, expressing his doubts about his own beliefs.

The Nature of Scientific Inquiry

The question arises: Was Darwin correct in asserting that there is no purpose behind physical laws? It’s noteworthy that Darwin stated, "I cannot see this," indicating that his perspective was not presented as fact or conclusion but rather as an observation based on empirical evidence.

Darwin's doubt was directed at his own convictions, acknowledging that while he shared a belief in a purposeful universe with Graham, his observations did not support that conclusion. In true scientific fashion, he prioritized evidence over personal belief, expressing this with humility rather than dogmatism.

Thank you for engaging with this discussion! If this resonated with you, I invite you to explore my reflections on empathizing with animals [here](#) and my insights on Darwin's achievements in Victorian England [here](#).