The nature of science, and indeed the entire academic spectrum, means that we can never be sure of anything. Granted, we can be almost certain of a fact, but we cannot be absolutely certain. Yesterday, I attended a fascinating lecture on historiography given by Dr. Dave Roberts, my head of unit. The nature of history is that we must never be dogmatic: when, for example, asking questions about the causes of the first world war, we must not snap to the answer ‘the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand’. History is much more complex, and much more interesting than that. Yes, the assassination did play a role, but there were a plethora of other factors: what if his chauffer had not made that wrong turn, etc? indeed, one historian cites the inflexibility of train timetables as a cause, for once the troops had started to be transported to the front via train, there was no way to recall them. Moreover, we must rely on sources, which essentially we can never be sure of the providence of; once we factor in bias too, we can see how elusive historical truth is.

We can say the same of all sciences, both social and natural (by which I mean physics, biology chemistry etc). I need hardly remind you guys that any scientific paper carries alternative hypotheses, admitting that results can be explained by other means. Science can only give us probabilities. Despite the vast quantities of data to support evolution, even Richard Dawkins admits god may still exist. Granted, as is the case with the theory of evolution we now have so much evidence that we can be 99.999% sure of something, but we must never proclaim ourselves absolutely certain of something. To do this would render the whole scientific field absolutely pointless.

I also see parallels between this and politics. One party proposes a bill, and another disagrees. No politician or person interested in politics should be so obstinate as to say that they are absolutely right on a subject. This is why politics, like academia, is a never-ending debate.

The problem comes with dogmatism. I refer to religious o political dogmatism. I go onto blogs and comment because I have a right to do so: I may disagree utterly with what a person has posted, but I can respond because truth is transient. I do not believe in the existence of truth, only opinion. Dogmatic people such as religious fundamentalist (Islamic, Christian or whatever) insist that there is no truth but there’s, as do, I find, many people on the right wing. This is why, I think, the two are often bedfellows. Thus my problem with religion is not beliefs in themselves – as suggested, we can never rule god out entirely – but the rejection of the transience of reality. Once we believe in one truth, we stop making progress; people who believe that there is no truth but theirs have closed their minds to alternatives.

This is why I am scared by George bush and Osama bin laden. Both men are fighting to impose their version of the truth; both are doing the same thing. If they don’t stop, the result can only be bad. Very bad.