Experiments with truth

Science and faith are similar in one more way: both begin by assuming something they can't discern, must be there. Take William Harvey, the first person who described the circulation of blood. He knew it had to go around, but the problem was that the arteries carrying the stuff from the heart and the veins bringing it back again just became smaller and smaller and seemed to peter out in theend. So how could the transfertake place?

Although Harvey didn't have microscopes that would have revealed the minuscule tubules that effected the exchange, he deeply believed they had to be there and, in fact, theorised extensively about them in his otherwise entirely experimental work. No one believed him for a long time but in the end, he was proved right and the truth was out.

Or take the Buddha. By the age of 29, he had realised the fact of suffering lay in the impermanency of all things but deeply believed there was a way it could be overcome. So, he experimented for many years till he hit upon the other three Noble Truths that showed him how the origin, cessation and the path leading to the cessation of suffering could be found. In the beginning, very few believed him too.

The difference between science and faith, however, is that when the truth of the indiscernible does materialise, one makes its presence objective and evidential whereas the other internalises it at a much more personal level. Unfortunately, the Great Debate has always been focused around which is the greater truth. At best, it's a minor quibble considering belief is usually the only winner.