Posted on 07/09/2021 5:25:37 AM PDT by MtnClimber
We live in a world dominated by science, but most people don't understand its most essential characteristic: establishing standards of evidence to keep us from getting fooled by our own biases and opinions.
-Maintaining standards of evidence is the most important and least appreciated idea in science.
-Modern science was established in the late Renaissance when networks of researchers began working out best practices for linking evidence with conclusions.
-In the face of science denial and attempts to create a post-truth society, we have to protect the primacy of standards of evidence in science and society.
I talk a lot about science to people who are not scientists. It's generally a lot of fun because most folks are science-curious even if they don't think about it a lot on their own time. But whether I'm talking about alien life, black holes, or the weirdnesses of quantum mechanics, there is always one really important idea that I try to get across that generally no one is interested in:
Standards of evidence. It's the most important boring idea in the universe.
Networks of scientists led to scientific societies
The development of modern science was a long, slow process that required input from most of the world's cultures ranging from ancient Greece and medieval Islam to India and China and eventually Renaissance Europe.
One of the most critical elements in Europe was the gradual build-up of international communities of scholars. While we usually think of science as being driven forward through the inspiration of one singular genius after another, that's only part of the story. For every Galileo and Newton there were hundreds of people you never heard of. They formed a network of thinkers and tinkerers writing letters to each other and making visits across the continent. In this way, they exchanged notes on things like the best way to carry out an experiment on boiling liquids or a new way to consider the mathematics of problems in celestial mechanics.
I don’t observe much in the way of “science denial”. I see rejection of political stunts being passed off as science.
You will. It's coming.
It never was.
And it sure isn't now.
Remember how science said ulcers were induced chiefly by stress or spicy food? It turns out, they are induced chiefly by bacteria. Whoops.
The history of science is littered with "no wait....that's wrong...THIS is right..." going through the rinse and repeat cycle endlessly.
And that's ok. Inquiry and challenge and "being a science heretic" is, in many ways, how mankind learns more and can fix more problems.
But science isn't math. Your checking account balance is the sum of deposits less sum of withdrawals. Always. Forever.
The problem arises when people try to equate science with math...usually they call it "settled science." And, to be sure, robust inquiry and disciplined application of the scientific method usually gives you clear and distinct results. Then, science is settled...until we get new data or better techniques, and then we get "wait a minute..".
For example, there was a most excellent article posted on how "settled science" wasn't so settled, wherein:
seems that Earth has been misplaced. According to a new map of the Milky Way galaxy, the Solar System's position isn't where we thought it was. Not only is it closer to the galactic centre - and the supermassive hole therein, Sagittarius A* - it's orbiting at a faster clip.
It further noted other "errors" in SCIENCE:
A good recent example of this is the red giant star Betelgeuse, which turned out to be closer to Earth than previous measurements suggested. This means that it's neither as large nor as bright as we thought. Another is the object CK Vulpeculae, a star that exploded 350 years ago. It's actually much farther away, which means that the explosion was brighter and more energetic, and requires a new explanation, since previous analyses were performed under the assumption it was relatively low energy
The other problem arises when Certain Powers work overtime to suppress assiduous inquiry. Which, is what we have today as well. It's a bad double whammy.
In the interest of full disclosure, my "science isn't math" quote came from a recent post on social sciences, that featured this brilliant give and take involving a Harvard faculty member critical of Charles Murray from the original article, that is worth reprinting - it is with regard to the "certainty of SCIENCE":
"so why should we let someone teach social science that we know to be wrong in our social science courses?"
Because it is possible that you are wrong.
Science is not mathematics. Newtonian physics was wrong. And social science is a further three rungs down in certainty from science.
Your level of certainty and arrogance about what can be said, and probably thought, smacks of religion, and not science. This is a political religion that permeates academia at the moment. And which I am fairly sure you will swear does not infect you, while the rest of us can see the symptoms quite plainly.
Only religions ban heretics from speaking because of the wrong-think they might cause. Real science loves a good heretic. In fact, honestly, the entire goal of science is to be a heretic. To have an idea that no other person ever had. Science is the pretty much the antithesis of your thought-police approach.
And most of academia used to be the antithesis of your thought police approach as well, until the religion of leftism took it over, with the direct help of people like you.
I don’t think so.....we live in a world dominated by ignorance & stupidity...
Thanks, that was a very good evaluation of the topic!
“Science” is a method, not a belief system, quasi-religion, or political philosophy.
Idiots on left and right who don’t understand what is meant by “Theory” are the worst offenders, followed by the twits who pick the rare cases where someone who was completely outside the dominant paradigm being right as justification for attacking the current state of beliefs with little or no evidence; just being contrarian doesn’t make one Galileo or Einstein.
“Settled science” merely means a theory with no currently viable (explains all the facts and/or makes accurate predictions with a minimum of complications) rivals. ‘Good enough in the general consensus of the majority of experts until additional facts or theories that makes more accurate predictions come along.
‘science’ + politics = NOT science
Well, science is math. Math is science. They are inseparably entangled. We use math to determine the why and how of science. Newtonian physics is correct (to a degree) and is proven by math. Quantum physics is correct (to a degree) and is proven by math. It is a paradox to be sure. But that is the universe we live in and I don’t care how many degrees the bloke from Harvard has, he is wrong.
Boys can be girls, girls can be boys, human fetus is not alive.
“Science is not mathematics. Newtonian physics was wrong.”
Newtonian physics wasn’t wrong, but it was incomplete. That is an important distinction. Newton’s calculations worked fine (and still do) 99% of the time, but over time we found more an more exceptions.
Almost all of those exceptions were cleaned up by Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, but we still have other exceptions that prove those theories are not complete.
Science, as we know it today, was born out of a belief that a rational God would create a rational world, and that his creatures – being rational – could understand it. Before the sixteenth century, philosophers believed that a fact was real knowledge if enough people had a strong belief in it . Thus “truth” was based upon a consensus among believers. But science requires that we can think rationally, and that results should be reported honestly .
“The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption. ”
Understood. Thank you. In the future if I repost this bit, I’ll add an erratum.
1+1=2. Always and forever.
The correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature change over 30 years does NOT mean we're all gonna die in 10.56 years.
Sorry; but I find standards of evidence fascinating. Logic rocks my socks.
MtnClimber:
“I don’t observe much in the way of “science denial”.
17th Miss Regt:
“You will. It’s coming.”
libertylover:
It’s already here. The left claims, without evidence, that there are 48 different sexes, not just 2 which is well established by evidence. This from the people who will tell you that a growing fetus is just a “tissue blob” despite the fact that a DNA test would prove that mother and fetus are two separate individual human beings.
Science is only one mental model to help humans think accurately.
If you only have one mental model, you’re limited and will make poor decisions.
“ 1+1=2. Always and forever.
Not in Gov’t schools!
Strawman argument. The complexity of Climate Change is beyond our calculations. There are too many variables to account for and they are subject to large variations. It is through math we have made many discoveries in quantum physics. Computer models have made significant medical and science discoveries. Stop using math and we severely limit scientific progress.
The truth is what you feel it is. I know, because I read it in Rollingstone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.