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.
This simple statement is the key to science:
If it (a theory) disagrees with experiment, then it’s WRONG.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
I’m not arguing that we should stop using math and, say, use astrology. I AM saying that equating the uncertainty of ______ (science, economics, agricultural mechanization benefits, robotic efficiency gains, etc.) with the certainty of math, is a yuge part of the problem.
Indeed.
A perfect illustration is the story of the humble egg:
1. Eggs are GOOD for you. They are full of protein.
2. Eggs are BAD for you. They are full of cholesterol.
3. Eggs are GOOD for you. They have no carbs.
4. Eggs are BAD for you, they are full of FAT.
5. Fat is BAD for you. Eat more Pasta. Just not made with Eggs.
6. Pasta is BAD for you. Too many carbs. Fat can be good for you, as long as it’s not cholesterol.
7. Not ALL cholesterol is Bad for you. HDL is bad, LDL is Good.
8. I have no idea what the current verdict of “settled science” is saying regarding Eggs. However, my S-I-L who worships “Science” has a flock of Chickens and sells delicious fresh eggs for $4.00 a dozen.
Any uncertainties will be accounted for over time and corrected leading to a more clear and complete understanding of the universe. To refuse to go forward is Luddite thinking. Math is essential to progress but this Harvard chap can gloat over his understanding of Critical Race Theory as if he has accomplished something.
The Church regarded science and the scientific method as the means by which the secrets of God might be known. But of course Islam was all scienced up too…you know because diversity.
Thanks for your post and the link. I went back and read all of that, having missed it before. Great stuff there!
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.