To some, superstition and theology are in a category directly opposed to the rational dictates of science. To others each of the three should be considered in an entirely separate category. They may differ in their sources and means of verification, but what they all have in common is an attempt to explain reality or some portion of it.

Each of them gives us a picture of reality. A word picture, really. A story which allows us some measure of understanding of the world around us and our place in it. A narrative which enables us to make predictions regarding the outcomes of our actions.

We usually consider superstition to be beliefs not grounded in reality. Some superstitions, however, have their origins in empirical observation. Like the superstition that it is bad luck to walk under a ladder. Just ask the guy whose head I bounced a squeegee off of while cleaning second story windows!

Certainly the origins are not always so obvious or so sensible. Often they are based on an apparent correlation that fails to stand up to rigorous examination. The genius of the scientific method is that it established means of testing and verification of proposed explanations. Of course this can take a while.

Take for example Ptolomaic astronomy. Observation told the ancients that heavenly bodies moved in circles around the earth. Further observation, however, revealed that things were not quite so simple. It seemed that the circles themselves moved with the seasons, so the theory was modified to account for this. After much more careful observation it became apparent that there were still some small unexpected aberrations. Eventually these were accounted for by postulating that planets actually moved in small, slow circles around points which moved on the circular paths first proposed for the planets themselves. Over time the theory became increasingly complicated, cumbersome... and accurate. In its final form it allowed amazingly accurate predictions, including predicting solar eclipses and so on. It worked.

It was not until the advent of the telescope that people realized that although the theory seemed to work well, it was not grounded in physical reality. So was it science or superstition? And what of something like acupuncture? Few western scientists would accept the Chinese theories of the flow of energies along meridians in the body, balance of yin and yang, etc. Still, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the ancient chinese practitioners were on to something. For some things acupuncture gives results significantly above what would be predicted based on the placebo effect. Science or superstition? Perhaps we could say that today's science is tomorrow's superstition.

A more recent example is the whole system of Newtonian physics. Investigations of Einstein's theories of General and Special Relativity have shown that the system is flawed at very large ends of the scale, and experiments in quantum physics have done the same at very small scales. In short, it is not a "true" picture of reality. Still, we continue to act as if it were all true. We still teach and use the theories. Why? Partly it is inertia. People tend to keep on doing and thinking what they always have. Largely, however it is because at the scales we work with in everyday life it works and we don't yet have a convenient replacement. That is fine as long as we realize that it is not a true picture of reality and do not try to apply it inappropriately.

Here is a simple (and rather silly) example to clarify what I mean. Suppose scientists specializing in the study of "human particles" have been observing a specific kind of human particle called Robert. Through years of careful study they have learned that if the day of the week is greater than Sunday but less than Saturday, Robert goes to work. This formula has held true through thousands of samplings. There was a minor scientific uproar when a young observer was able to show that there was a small degree of uncertainty about this if the month was greater than June but less than September (there have also been other unconfirmed reports of variations from this pattern, but no one has been able to reproduce them ). They still haven't found a precise formula for this behaviour, but they're working on it and the scientific world has returned to some measure of complacency. The problem is that Robert retired last week and the next time someone makes an observation they are going to be in for a surprise.

Silly as this example is, it is quite similar to what happens in scientific investigation. We are able to find formulas that "explain" our observations, but they don't really tell us anything about what happens on a more fundamental level. Furthermore, for any given set of facts it is possible to produce an infinite number of wrong theories to explain them. Eventually inconsistencies will be discovered and wrong theories will be discarded and replaced by new (hopefully slightly less) wrong theories that fit the new facts.

The history of science is full of statements by people who thought we had discovered almost everything there is to discover, and that there was nothing left but to calculate a "few decimal places." Usually this comes just before a major revolution in scientific thought. Are we finally almost there? I seriously doubt it.

I love science. I love it for many reasons, and at one time I wanted to become a scientist and work on the "grand unified theory" that would tie everything neatly together. My love for it has not waned, but science becomes an idol and a superstition when we believe that now our theories are finally a "scientific", reliable, and trustworthy way to understand the nature of reality.

So what am I saying? Am I declaring that science and superstition are indistinguishable? Not exactly, although I would suggest they have more in common than we are usually comfortable admitting. I certainly have no desire to reopen the gates to a flood of unfounded superstition. What I am saying is that our knowledge is always conditional and it is dangerous to attempt to apply it outside of very strict limits. What I am proposing is humility.