## **Science as Doubt and Art as Belief: Perspectives on Human Belief** The proposition that _“science is doubt and art is belief”_ draws attention to two distinct ways humans navigate understanding and meaning: the analytical scepticism of science and the intuitive conviction of art. Expanding on this idea opens a pathway to explore the complexities of human belief and perception, particularly through the lens of figures like John Berger and ideas from _The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect_. ### **Science as Doubt** #### • **Scepticism as a Methodology:** Science thrives on doubt, questioning assumptions, and systematically seeking to disprove hypotheses. This aligns with the notion that doubt is essential to avoid believing anything too easily in a chaotic world of competing ideas. #### • **“Causal Doubt” in** **_The Book of Why_** Judea Pearl argues that causal reasoning requires doubt about observed correlations. Without questioning “why” and “what if,” science remains trapped in surface-level associations. This doubting process drives deeper exploration of cause and effect, offering a structured method for navigating human belief. #### • **John Berger on Seeing:** In _Ways of Seeing_, Berger explores how perception is shaped by context and [[Ideology]], often hidden beneath layers of certainty. This resonates with the scientific mindset, which seeks to strip away assumptions to uncover more reliable truths. Science, therefore, could be seen as the art of refining doubt into clarity. ### **Art as Belief** #### • **Art as Conviction:** Art operates on the premise of belief, inviting creators and audiences to suspend scepticism and immerse themselves in subjective experience. A [[Painting]], poem, or song creates [[Meaning]] not by doubting but by affirming a vision or feeling. #### • **Berger and Belief in Art:** Berger viewed [[Art]] as a way of seeing the world—a belief system embedded in images and expressions. [[Art]], in his view, communicates human truths that elude [[Empirical]] scrutiny, reflecting the unmeasurable facets of existence. #### • **Complementary to Science:** While science dissects the “how,” art embraces the “why” in a deeply human sense. Both approaches address belief but from opposite directions—science through scepticism and validation, art through [[Intuition]] and resonance. # **Belief as a Unifying Force** ## **The Interplay of Doubt and Belief:** Humans need both doubt and belief to navigate the [[Chaos]] of competing ideas. Doubt keeps us questioning falsehoods, while belief allows us to build narratives, find purpose, and connect with others. #### • **Connecting Science and Art in Belief:** • In _[[The Book of Why]]_, causal diagrams (DAGs) can be seen as a “belief system” for scientific inquiry, encoding assumptions about cause and effect to be tested. The creation of these models reflects a form of belief rooted in evidence, mirroring art’s conviction but with a sceptical foundation. - [ ] what are causal diagrams (DAGs?) 🆔 cUaJUQ ### Causal Diagrams (DAGs) in _The Book of Why_ In "_The Book of Why_" by Judea Pearl and Dana Mackenzie, causal diagrams, or [[Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) – Libby Daniells|Directed Acyclic Graphs]] (DAGs), are presented as a tool for understanding and modeling cause-and-effect [[Relationships]] in scientific inquiry. Here’s how they relate to the concept of a "belief system": 1. **Encoding Assumptions**: - DAGs serve as a visual representation of the researcher's assumptions about the causal [[Relationships]] between variables. Each arrow in a DAG represents a hypothesized causal link, which can be tested and refined through [[Empirical]] research. 2. **Belief Rooted in Evidence**: - The creation of these models is inherently a form of belief, but it is a belief that is grounded in evidence. Researchers use data and observations to construct and validate these diagrams, making them a dynamic tool for scientific exploration. 3. **Skeptical Foundation**: - Unlike dogmatic beliefs, DAGs are built on a foundation of skepticism. They are subject to continuous testing and revision, reflecting the scientific method's emphasis on falsifiability and empirical validation. 4. **Mirroring Art’s Conviction**: - The use of DAGs in scientific inquiry can be seen as analogous to the conviction found in artistic expression. Just as artists convey their beliefs through their work, scientists use DAGs to express their hypotheses about causal [[Relationships]]. However, while art's conviction may be subjective, DAGs are rooted in a systematic and evidence-based approach. • Conversely, art invites us to trust the validity of subjective human experience, enriching our emotional and imaginative capacity to navigate the world. ## **Implications for Human Belief** ### • **Balancing Adaptability:** The adaptability of humans, while a strength, makes us susceptible to chaotic belief systems. Science offers tools to doubt and refine those beliefs, while art gives meaning and coherence to our individual and collective narratives. ### • **Towards Wholeness:** Berger might argue that a full human understanding requires both ways of seeing: science’s sceptical pursuit of truth and art’s affirmative grasp of meaning. Together, they offer a balanced approach to belief—one that doubts what is uncertain and believes in what connects us to ourselves and others. By recognising these dualities and their interplay, we can better navigate the complexities of belief in an ever-changing world. `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`