Faces are pretty cool, don't you think? They're all so detailed and full of interesting language that we are hard wired to interpret and connect with. I love it whenever I hear a thing about how as humans, we're pre-disposed to see faces in random configurations of shapes. Turns out that it's useful for us to recognise two eyes and a mouth when we're out in the wild; especially the ones that want to eat us.
In many ways, it's why abstraction is possible, as we assign assumptions to shapes and patterns that make sense to us on a fundamental level. A typical smiley face is one of the greatest abstract interpretations of a form that's ever been created, and it's no surprise to me that it's of a face.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is lacking in face-like images, which makes it easier for faces to appear. Like, if there isn't a lot of other things that could be mistaken for a face, it stands to reason that our brains immediately jump to the face conclusion, as there's nothing to compete for attention. It might be why computers are so good at recognising faces as well. I mean, surely we've all seen those stupid phone filters that augment faces to look like rabbits, or anime characters, or some other ridiculous construction. It always amazes me that the facial recognition on these programs is so good that it can track your face through movement, with relatively high levels of accuracy.
So maybe we're just exercising some basic programming in our heads when we recognise faces in a piece of toast, or a knot in a tree. Sometimes it seems like you can put any two circles and a line together and we'll immediately assign it a personality, which really gets you thinking.
It must be super easy to fool our brains and lead them down the garden path of misinterpreting external stimuli provided by reality. We're programmed to make assumptions about the world around us, so that we can operate effectively within it. Some might call these interpretations "facts" or "constants", but even a passing interest in scientific method and history will show that even these rigid terms are fluid and constantly on the edge of being redefined.
I'm not someone who will argue against scientific reasoning, but I do have a bit of an issue with the strict dogmatic interpretation of so-called "facts" that science presents. Perhaps I can attribute this way of thinking to studying philosophy and critical thinking, which led me to believe that at best we have a functional interpretation of reality.
Science is an interesting belief system, as it presents itself as the antithesis of a belief system, while existing as a dominant authoritarian system. Basically you either agree with "big science" or you're out! We've all seen the facebook pages that scoff self-righteously at anyone believing in something other than scientific "facts".
The sad part is that I think science gets a bad reputation because a lot of its followers fail to appreciate its flaws and limitations. As soon as anyone starts talking about "facts" like they're infallible, I can't help but offer sympathy for the realisation that they've been caught in their bubble of thinking there is only a single form of existence that's definable and universally understandable. I believe that my view on people clinging to scientific "facts" is similar to how those same people view religious believers who have the same faith in gods and ethereal wisdom.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm no climate change denier, and organised religion generally makes me want to burn something. My point is that there's a huge difference between thinking scientific "facts" are set in stone, and realising that science is a highly pragmatic and useful belief system.
I'll get on to the benefits of framing science as a belief system, but first it's important to make the distinction of this not being an attack on science itself. I say that it's a very useful belief system, because I believe that it is. Every day I rely on scientific interpretations of reality in order to function effectively in the world and perform simple tasks. When I drive my car, I consider the physics of the car's mass pitched against its speed, so that I can corner effectively and brake on time before hitting anything. On a more fundamental level, I walk around every day without holding onto things, because I know I can rely on gravity to keep me on the ground. It might sound simple, but these are all scientific interpretations of reality, that are useful and used all the time in modern life.
To contrast this, think back to the middle ages or whenever people were obsessed with gods and religion being the dominant school of thought. If the weather was unseasonably warm or volatile, we'd be thinking that the gods were pissed off with our immoral actions, influencing us to behave better. Even without that much drama, it might be a "fact" that after death we will be judged on the quality of life we led. If we strived for morally upstanding behaviour, we will be given access to infinite joy and happiness. However, if we ignored all of that and lived an immoral life were we harmed others and gave in to our own selfish desires, we could be damned to an eternity of pain and suffering.
I would argue that this belief system based on religion is actually worth more than we non-religious types give it credit. Of course, I'm only speaking from a Western perspective, as I have learned enough to know that Eastern philosophies are quite different. That being said, it's easy to draw a line between what we consider to be moral behaviour and the doctrine of religious teachings. We're still influenced by religious "fact" to this day, so arrogantly discounting religious influence in favour of scientific "fact" is not only short-sighted, it's just plain ignorance.
Anyway, with all that in mind I'm happy to follow science as a belief system, as it provides acceptable answers that help me function in the world. While I wouldn't say that I follow any religious beliefs, I do follow philosophical discourse on the parts of life that are a bit fuzzier. We already mentioned morality a lot, but it's the perfect example of something that remains philosophical, as there aren't enough right answers to make it a science. So I like to think of myself as someone who accepts scientific interpretations of reality, with a big old serve of philosophical questioning and discourse to wash it all down.
Thus, the reason I think it's beneficial to frame science as a belief system, is that it provides space for things to change. We all joke about how Pluto used to be a planet, but it's a great contemporary example of how "facts" are not as rigid and universal as we may think. When I was in school, there were nine planets in our solar system and there was never a question about whether or not that was "the way". I still find it hard to not think of Pluto as a planet, because I spent my entire youth being taught that it was as much a planet as any other planet.
While I struggle with accepting the "fact" that Pluto is no longer a planet, I consider how others might struggle with "facts" that are at odds with what they know. For example, I had a drink with a work colleague once who spent a good amount of time telling me how ridiculous it was that humans evolved from apes. He assumed that I agreed with him, so it wasn't a hostile discussion, but I dove into his perspective as it fascinated me deeply. We're both about the same age, but he had grown up in a family whose culture involved some pretty devout religious influence. It was clear that throughout his entire life, he's been taught that his god created human beings who are far more complex and intricate a species than any animal. So it was completely preposterous for him to comprehend the notion that we had any relationship to apes.
I don't bring this up to put down my former work colleague, but I think of it to highlight how deep a different understanding of reality can go. It would have been incredibly rude and arrogant of me to start arguing with his belief system, simply because it contradicted my own. At the end of the day, we were able to live our lives and hang out together without the origins of human beings getting in the way.
This is why I hate it when I see people roll their eyes and act terribly towards each other, simply because they have different belief systems. I'm not saying we should just accept everyone else's views because they're different, but a little perspective on how much impact they have on our lives and the lives of others is worthwhile. I'll back anyone who wants to do good in the name of their god, because they're ultimately doing good. If science makes it imperative for you to be a decent person, then I'll back you as well.
The tricky part is figuring out what "good" means, but that's a deeper discussion for another time.
I like thinking about faces, because it reminds me that the world is up for interpretation at all times. I often catch myself instinctually reacting to a shape like it’s a face, but quickly figuring out it isn't and moving on. The fact that our brains are so easy to influence serves as a constant reminder that reality is nothing more than the wool pulled over our eyes.
Whenever we start seeing things are black and white, we forget how much grey area exists all around us. Humans are inherently fallible, which is a survival mechanism at best and dangerously volatile at worst. Whatever we think the truth of our reality may be, I think it's important to always remember that the best we can do is form a functional belief system. There's no such thing as a constant without relativity, so let's stop pretending that there is.
I know saying something like "just be cool to other people" is a bit naïve, as there are numerous version of "be cool" to roll with. Let's not get caught up in cynicism and try to do no harm instead. I think that's a good starting point, so next time when you see a face in an inanimate object, convert that realisation into the drive to make the world a happier place.