Astronomers Had it Wrong: Most Stars are Single

space.com ^ | 01/30/06 | Ker Than

[KevinDavis]

For more than 200 years, astronomers thought that most of the stars in our galaxy had stellar companions. But a new study suggests the bulk of them are born alone and never have stellar company.

Since planets are believed to be easier to form around single stars, the discovery could mean planets are more common as well.

Conventional wisdom on double star systems, called binaries, goes as far back as the late 1700s. More sophisticated observations made in the 20th century seemed to confirm the numerical dominance of pairs.

Stellar surveys found that more than half of all Sun-like stars were part of multiple systems. For more massive stars, like O- and B-type stars, the number was estimated to be as high as 80 percent.

[RightWhale]

I made an observation that scientists like to sound certain

Actually, most don't, and aren't certain at all. They know quite well what the limits of their theories are and if someone is able to follow their thoughts are usually quite willing to explain. I know of no other group that says they are so uncertain. You want certainty listen to politicians, programmers, and clergymen.

[SampleMan]

You obviously live in a utopian dream, where scientists are pure, and their methods always correct, uneffected by bias, politics, and personal whim.

Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.

[spunkets]

"I'm not buying what you're selling."

I gave you the truth free of charge. If you have a problem with it, then address it rationally, not as you have with illogical rubbish.

[SampleMan]

Actually, most don't, and aren't certain at all.

Can't agree with the former, although I would say that the latter would be true if they were challenged on it. I can't count the number of PhD's that have mouthed the equivilent of, "the astroid strike caused the mass extinction of..."

Its safe to say that scientists never think that their theory is wrong (why would they hold it otherwise), and it is human nature to just assume what you must in order to procede on to the next step. The problem with not acknowledging the level of uncertainty arrises when we are told we must act on the science and we can't question it because there isn't sufficient proof to the contrary, nevermind that there is very little supporting proof. e.g. I've blindly pulled one black marble from a bag of unkown size and no other marbles can currently be extracted, THEREFORE, all available evidence is strong that all the marbles in the bag are black.

[RightWhale]

Actual scientists are not those caricatures in many of these press releases. It is interesting sometimes to find that a particular scientist will express more and more certainty that farther he is from his own field of expertise and I have known a couple like that. Indeed, many scientists view those scientists who insist that they are correct as crackpots and that includes the former Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan.

[SampleMan]

I gave you the truth free of charge. If you have a problem with it, then address it rationally, not as you have with illogical rubbish.

The problem is the logical rubbish that passes as science. Grant money has created a wasteland in what should be scientific method, and far too often peer review is simply preaching to the group-think choir.

My experience with the science departments at Universities is that they are full of personal politics that affect the judgment of the staff, and the scientific findings (when open to interpretation or variable input) amazingly correspond with the click they're in.

[spunkets]

"Grant money has created a wasteland in what should be scientific method"

this statement doesn't make any sense.

"far too often peer review is simply preaching to the group-think choir."

Peer review simply means someone that understands the material looked it over for originality, completeness of reference, sound logic, supported conclusions and appropriateness for the particular publication. It is never a process that includes "group think".

" My experience with the science departments at Universities"

What are those depts and what is your experience with those science depts?

[SampleMan]

You appear to understand how everything is SUPPOSED to work. That's nice. I read it in 5th grade and understood it then. And for the record, I think it should work that way too.

But what I know, is that grant money is often given in the same way that the National Endowment of the Arts decides what is worthy.

But this is all really beside the point. My original post concerned my unwillingness to bet the farm on a particular scientific consensus, when I think that the scientists don't have enough evidence to be presenting their views as public guidance. I know that "undisputed" and "somewhat possible" can both accurately describe the same theory (back to my marble analogy). I really can't see how anyone remotely dedicated to science could have a problem with that.

[spunkets]

"You appear to understand how everything is SUPPOSED to work."

I gave you how it is.

"when I think that the scientists don't have enough evidence to be presenting their views as public guidance.

You're free to addrress any of the particulars as you would like to.

" I know that "undisputed" and "somewhat possible" can both accurately describe the same theory "

Theories are logical constructs supported by observable evidence. If you have evidense contradicting any theory, you can present it. That evidense and you claim that it invalidates the theory will be evaluated on it's scientific merit. "Undisputed" is a worthless term in science. "Somewhat possible" is a phrase that never applies to a theory. It only applies to hypothesis. In order to reach attain the status of theory, there must be strong evidence. A general theory can only be modified to a more general theory that includes the old theory as a limiting case.

[SampleMan]

It is interesting sometimes to find that a particular scientist will express more and more certainty that farther he is from his own field of expertise...

And I would add, those who are speaking to an audience not familiar with the evidence. I think this is just human nature. The desire to summarize for those not familiar with the facts.

Again, I'm not a Luddite. I just like to see a healthy dose of humility in scientists that are working with conjecture, albeit logical conjecture. e.g. Black matter only "exists" because the math doesn't work without it (add humility here to the possibility of being wrong). The moon can be observed (less humility required).

[SampleMan]

I gave you how it is.

Utopian science, never muddled, never too confident, always objective, always open. If you aren't laughing yet, there's no hope for you.

You're free to address any of the particulars as you would like to.

Like a pilot telling his horrified passengers, "If you don't like the way I fly, come up here and do it yourself." Or perhaps it would be reasonable to expect scientists to stick not only to scientific method, but also to logical restraint about the uncertainty of their theories.

Every single scientific theory that has been shown to be inaccurate, had great evidence behind it, right up to the point where new evidence became available.

Is it really asking so much that scientists don't understate the possible unknowns and as yet unquantifiable variables in their conclussions?

[Doomonyou]

And yet Global Warming is a 'sure' thing ...

That's "Climate Change" to you, Jack.

[spunkets]

" Every single scientific theory that has been shown to be inaccurate, had great evidence behind it"

Examples?

[tet68]

the bulk of them are born alone and never have stellar company

That's so sad.

Yes, yes it is, although the escort services do make a tidy sum from it.

[RightWhale]

I am reasonably sure that we are each speaking from observation of specimens of actual scientists that we have each known personally. At one point I worked in the science office of an actual meteorologist, not the guy on the TV that gets the weather prediction right sometimes, but a physicist with that specialty. He was working on a world climate model and said that lack of data was a big question mark. He didn't complain about lack of computer power even though it was early sixties and computers weren't much by today's machines. I imagine that data is better now, but only data collected in the meantime. The data prior to 1960 is still sparse and always will be unless we can go back in time to plant weather stations everywhere over the past thousands of years. So, the long-term climate model will have to be rough even if data is coming in thick and fast now. That's the way it is, and that's pretty much what he said.

[SampleMan]

...So, the long-term climate model will have to be rough even if data is coming in thick and fast now. That's the way it is, and that's pretty much what he said.

You've summed up my skepticism very well. Computer models for any complex system requires endless tweaking to get right. This tweaking can only occur when the actual results can be checked against the computer model. This works great with short period systems like car crashes.

The problem with climate modeling is that the system is very long and we have no back data (ice core samples are not adequate), nor do we have a time machine to check current projections.

Simply knowing the inaccuracies of complex computer modeling (pre-tweaking), makes me role my eyes when I think about the assertions of probability given out as scientific. If you think about it, the economy is no more complex than global weather, and it too is modeled, yet you have a hard time finding two economists that agree on projections.

The inability to even closely forecast the North Atlantic hurricane season, just as it starts is all the proof I need that the computer models are either incorrect, or the inputted data is incomplete. Why anyone would put stock in the same modeling to accurately predict climate is beyond me.

I think the natural human tendency to equate effort to worth is at play. Scientists spend an enormous amount of time and brain power creating a computer model, and then believe because it is so complex, it must be valid. Additionally, as a group, they have labored for years and written thousands of papers on what effects the climate, the inclination is to self-reinforce the idea that they know enough to make solid predictions, because to admit otherwise would cast doubt on their self-worth. I'm not saying it should, just that its human to feel that way, and scientists are human.

[RightWhale]

Scientists spend an enormous amount of time and brain power creating a computer model, and then believe because it is so complex, it must be valid

Grad students might do that. Actual scientists have had that tendency beat out of them by their Advisors.

[SampleMan]

" Every single scientific theory that has been shown to be inaccurate, had great evidence behind it"

Examples?

Lamarckism

Newtonian physics

pre-atomic chemistry

pre-DNA cell biology

All of these were solid, based on what was known, until something previously unknown was added.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915 "Most scientific papers are probably wrong"

Climatology has the weakness of being unable to validate its theories. There are two uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis. Climatology's observations are in fact so weak given the breadth of what is known to be inaccessible, that climatological theories can't rise above supposition. I like testable theories and reproducible results, if I'm going to change my life based on a theory.

[SampleMan]

Actual scientists have had that tendency beat out of them by their Advisors.

I think the tendency returns when the effort becomes collaborative, especially when an entire community goes along. If climatologists are going to do anything concerning the study of climate change, then the community as a whole must accept that certain computer modeling is reliably predictive, "I'll accept the validity of your modeling, if you'll accept mine." Without this, climatology goes nowhere. Once this is done, it is professionally suicidal to start attacking the reliability of the method.

How else do you explain the inaccuracy of short term hurricane modeling from the same scientists that state that they can reliably predict a 1 degree average change over 100 years? The North Atlantic hurricane season is simply a matter of retained heat (or so we believe), and predicting 1-5, 5-6, 6-8, etc. storms shouldn't be too difficult if the modeling is good. Yet, forecasts are not historically any better than throwing darts.

When hurricane season forecasts become better than random chance, I'll start to believe that the modeling is on track.

[spunkets]

Lamarckism was a hypothesis, never a theory.

Newtonian physics is a special case of General Reletivity in regions of space with a low energy density. IOWs the space is flat, so the equations of GR reduce to Newton's. They do so, because the curvature is so close to zero, it can be ignored.

"pre-atomic chemistry... pre-DNA cell biology"

I have no idea what these mean, but obviously they did not involve theory.

"All of these were solid, based on what was known, until something previously unknown was added."

The only "solid" one you gave was Newton's theory, which survives in the limiting case of low energy density space, where the space is flat. Notice that the old theory survives as a limiting case, as I said. That's

" Climatology has the weakness of being unable to validate its theories."

Wrong. The theories involved are well validated. Any weakness involves modeling. That involves making sure the model is an accurate representation of the reality modeled.

"There are two uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis."

Wrong in both cases. A theory is a hypothesis with a mathematical formulation, supported by observations. That is the only meaning of the word.

"Climatology's observations are in fact so weak given the breadth of what is known to be inaccessible, that climatological theories can't rise above supposition."

Wrong. You obviously don't know what's involved, let alone understand it. The only problems that could arise are the accuracy of the model, or your failure to know and understand the statistical nature of the model's results.

"I like testable theories and reproducible results, if I'm going to change my life based on a theory."

You didn't know what a theory was. I posted what it is. You'll have to grasp it, before you can go any further.