Science and Knowledge

I subscribe to a weekly email newsletter about issues relating to science. The last two weeks the author has expressed frustration at the extent to which acupuncture has become accepted even though there is no scientific explanation for how it could work. In my opinion what ought to be asked is, "does acupuncture work?" because this is a question science is able to answer, and the answer would be relevant to all the people who believe so fervently in it. It is important to remember that there are lots of truths that science has yet to validate. (On a related note, I found the following excellent post on Good Math, Bad Math.)

As a mathematician I find that there are lots of things that engineers and physicists believe, that do not have a solid mathematical proof. For example, there is not, as far as I know, a proof that the hexagonal lattice is the ground state for particles interacting through a spherical, decreasing potential in two dimensions, and yet I have been told by many capable physicists that this is obviously the case. Pointing out that there is no proof only signifies that I'm a pedant.

The question then is what is our criteria for accepting something as true. Certainly superstition allows too much, and mathematical proof allows too little -- math alone can say nothing about observation. What I find most interesting is how people answer this question, or don't as the case may be. I have met many people who do not seem to have a standard that is independent of any particular statement. This seems especially true with politics where people will accept statements they are predisposed to believe with the most minimal of examinations, and reject other statements on the basis of the most stringent examination of details.