Misunderstanding about science.

[cynical dreamer]

This might seem a bit random but, as i get deeper and deeper into training to become a professional scientists I have noticed that the general public, and sadly many government officials, often misunderstand the basic tenants of science and the scientific method.

The biggest one is science's ability to prove things. Science proves nothing ever. It can't. It won't. And it never will.

What it does do is provide evidence to support hypotheses. As this support turns into a mountain that hypothesis becomes a theory.

And all it takes is one refutation and the hypothesis must be discarded (or refined).

My point, you ask, is that these things are not understood by the general public. Not in all cases, but most. Is it failure on the part of us in the science community to educate, or is it the misuse of science by the media, government, and special interest groups? Or is it a little of both?

Makes me crazy...

 

[FlyingLemons]

I'd like to disagree on the idea that science can't prove anything ever - quantum electrodynamics is a VERY successful theory, coming from highly theoretical work to being one that can be examined both by colliders and also in other methods as well, giving the exact results the theory predicted. And mathematical proofs also have a way of being shown to be true in nature as well.

But as for science being misunderstood by the public at large, such as being taken in by overenthusiastic reporting (Scientists announce theory of everything!) or a desire to believe in things that are not accepted in the scientific community itself (use your imagination...) I would say that basically, it's down to the fact that there's a disjoint between the knowledge of a highly specialized community and the general public. Scientists can't really communicate that knowledge directly (try explaining the idea of cosmological inflation to anyone without a knowledge of physics effectively), so we come up with approximations which don't come that close to what is actually being described. Here enter grounds for confusion and misinterpretation, and we'll never be able to make the general public understand science completely.

But what we can do is try and make sure that bad science and junk masquerading as science is kept to a minimum, and that it isn't allowed to mislead the public.

 

[cynical dreamer]

But a theory still isn't a proof. And a mathematical proof can still be refuted if, for example, someone shows tomorrow evidence for 1+1 =3. It's highly highly unlikely, but the possibility exists. That's what i mean by science's inability to "prove" things. All it does is provide evidence. Sometimes that evidence is overwhelming, and it leads to theories, but it is not a proof in the true sense of the word.

I agree with the rest of what you said though. It's why someone like Carl Sagan is so missed due to his ability to communicate science in a thoughtful and meaningful way to the general public.

 

[Psion]

I'd like to disagree on the idea that science can't prove anything ever - quantum electrodynamics is a VERY successful theory, coming from highly theoretical work to being one that can be examined both by colliders and also in other methods as well, giving the exact results the theory predicted. And mathematical proofs also have a way of being shown to be true in nature as well.

But as for science being misunderstood by the public at large, such as being taken in by overenthusiastic reporting (Scientists announce theory of everything!) or a desire to believe in things that are not accepted in the scientific community itself (use your imagination...) I would say that basically, it's down to the fact that there's a disjoint between the knowledge of a highly specialized community and the general public. Scientists can't really communicate that knowledge directly (try explaining the idea of cosmological inflation to anyone without a knowledge of physics effectively), so we come up with approximations which don't come that close to what is actually being described. Here enter grounds for confusion and misinterpretation, and we'll never be able to make the general public understand science completely.

But what we can do is try and make sure that bad science and junk masquerading as science is kept to a minimum, and that it isn't allowed to mislead the public.

Consider Newtonian physics. For two hundred years, it was the last word in mechanical motion, but this upstart patent clerk came along and pointed out that there were inaccuracies in certain extreme conditions and provided a set of equations that worked much better in those extreme conditions. Thus Einstein superseded Newton. Mind you, Newton is good enough for most mundane calculations ... no one's car, for example, adjusts the dashboard clock to compensate for the effects of velocity on time, but the errors in Newtonian physics are corrected in Special Relativity.

I'm also amused by the history of Plate Tectonics. For over a century, schoolchildren have been able to look at a globe and notice how well Europe and Africa could fit against North and South America, yet when Alfred Wegener advanced the notion in 1912 that sea floor spreading could account for this and the appearance of geological deposits in adjoining places on both sides of the Atlantic, he was shouted down by eminent geologists who insisted the Earth's masses were fixed. It wasn't until the 1960s that this attitude began to change. Today we know the planet's crust is composed of jostling plates that drift about upon the mantle; driving up mountains and powering earthquakes. Thus, in this one respect, ignorant schoolchildren were more correct than the most eminent geologist of the 1920s.

Scientists are not the answers of questions ... they are the askers.

 

[TIN_MAN]

I think part of the problem is the educational system itself, public schools often teach students that science is the last word, and the ultimate arbiter of truth. And history too, there seems to be a sense in both cases that we've pretty much figured it all out, and it's just the details that remain to be worked out? This robbes students of the necessary incentive and sense of wonder necessary to make really important new breakthroughs. Scientist too, often talk and act as if absolute proof exists for their theories, and that such and such phenomena is just this or that way, and the data cannot possibly be flawed or incomplete, and therefore refuse to entertain new ideas or contrary evidence. Continental drift is a perfect example, scientest "knew" Wagener was wrong, so they ignored the evidence until it became overwhelming. Scientists have egos too, and don't like to see their lifes work overturned, so thay'll insist to the end that they have "proof" and that any challanges are just "junk science".

 

[The Badger]

Scientists have egos too, and don't like to see their lifes work overturned, so thay'll insist to the end that they have "proof" and that any challanges are just "junk science".

Sadly that is all to often the case, but ideally it should go very differently.
Richard Dawkins, whilst a young student, had a lecturer who had a pet hypothesis. He believed that certain structures seen in living cells did not actually exist, and were no more than an illusion caused by the observational methods used at the time. On his own time he had spent some fifteen years pursuing this hypothesis.
It was the tradition for Dawkins' class to hear lectures from visiting academics, and on one occasion an American professor spoke to them about his own recent discoveries. Now as it happened the professor did not know about the lecturer's pet project, but it did cover the same cell structures. Over the course of his speech, he made it perfectly clear that they did exist, with evidence.
Just imagine, for a moment, what it must have been like for Dawkins' lecturer. To have spent fifteen years on a project, only to see it demolished in a matter of minutes. I think must of us would be upset, devastated, probably even angry.
Instead, the lecturer shook the visiting professor warmly by the hand, saying "Thank you sir, I have been wrong these many years!"

Whilst science isn't always like that, it always strives to be. To hold on to an obsolete concept in the face of confounding evidence is irrational, a sign of dogmatism. The only reason science works (and it does work) is by remaining adaptable.

 

[Jadzia]

This might seem a bit random but, as i get deeper and deeper into training to become a professional scientists I have noticed that the general public, and sadly many government officials, often misunderstand the basic tenants of science and the scientific method.

[...]

I mostly agree with you.

experiments --> discover trends --> guides further thinking --> testable predictions --> experiments

We all do extract some sort of 'truth' from this perpetual process, and we should do, otherwise the process is futile.

While at the same time, we should remember that this 'truth' isn't written in stone. A theory should never become too firmly established that we lose our ability to question it or reinterpret it.

We're all at different points along that scale of belief vs disbelief, of what is truth vs possibility.

 

[Johnny Rico]

This might seem a bit random but, as i get deeper and deeper into training to become a professional scientists I have noticed that the general public, and sadly many government officials, often misunderstand the basic tenants of science and the scientific method.

The biggest one is science's ability to prove things. Science proves nothing ever. It can't. It won't. And it never will.

What it does do is provide evidence to support hypotheses. As this support turns into a mountain that hypothesis becomes a theory.

And all it takes is one refutation and the hypothesis must be discarded (or refined).

My point, you ask, is that these things are not understood by the general public. Not in all cases, but most. Is it failure on the part of us in the science community to educate, or is it the misuse of science by the media, government, and special interest groups? Or is it a little of both?

Makes me crazy...

Well, I think it's those of you in the scientific field who forget that all you are accomplishing is the creation of theories. Therefore all this talk about scientific fact, is a bunch a bullshit. Which is why for those of us who question your theories, get so frustrated when we get shut out of the debate for being "right-wing wackos" or such.

That's why this Global Warming THEORY is such a huge issue these days. For those in the scientific community who are adamant about claiming that it is fact, and therefore, closed off for debate, as Al Gore would lead us all to believe, is not keeping with what science is all about.

Because in this case, the theory on Global Warming is that the Earth is warming, and can be proven to some degree I guess, but what it doesn't explain is whether or not that it is a normal phenomenon that works in cycles through-out history, or something unique to the modern world. Because when the Earth came out of the last Ice Age, the world was warmer than it is today admist this global warming "problem".

So, the bottom line is global warming (or more specifically, "climate change") a problem or just something very natural. I lean towards the latter myself. Because science has proven it so before. Ironically.

 

[FlyingLemons]

Well, I think it's those of you in the scientific field who forget that all you are accomplishing is the creation of theories. Therefore all this talk about scientific fact, is a bunch a bullshit. Which is why for those of us who question your theories, get so frustrated when we get shut out of the debate for being "right-wing wackos" or such.

That's why this Global Warming THEORY is such a huge issue these days. For those in the scientific community who are adamant about claiming that it is fact, and therefore, closed off for debate, as Al Gore would lead us all to believe, is not keeping with what science is all about.

Because in this case, the theory on Global Warming is that the Earth is warming, and can be proven to some degree I guess, but what it doesn't explain is whether or not that it is a normal phenomenon that works in cycles through-out history, or something unique to the modern world. Because when the Earth came out of the last Ice Age, the world was warmer than it is today admist this global warming "problem".

So, the bottom line is global warming (or more specifically, "climate change") a problem or just something very natural. I lean towards the latter myself. Because science has proven it so before. Ironically.

I call it climate change as it refers to the fact that the climate will always change, rather than some wonderful new phenomenon that's only just occurring. The planet has both warmed up and become cooler over history, and that's not new. What is new is that there's a lot of gas now being released by humans, and it's bound to have effects on the climate systems of this planet. As it's quite a lot of gas, it will have profound effects, but when and what severity is hard to discern.

I believe humans are having an effect on climate change, but the fact that quite a few "green" organizations have members with directorships of alternative fuel companies make me think that perhaps there's a tiny bit of hype going on. And don't get me started on carbon credits.

As for those that question scientific orthodoxies, well, there's nothing wrong with that per se. I'm a sceptic that string theory will lead to unification of physics, and think it might be worth looking at other options, for instance.

 

[Jadzia]

The climate is changing. It will affect sea levels and the growing seasons, the ocean currents, and the hurricane seasons, etc. And every creature on the planet is potentially at risk from those changes. We all need food. Food needs to be farmed. We rely on the climate for that farming to be successful. It doesn't take much to ruin a harvest, whether it's too much rain. too little rain. too hot or cold. too much or too little sun. suitable land for farming (which might be lost in sea level rises), etc.

So are we causing the climate change or not? We don't know. But it is changing, and if we know that we can change the climate, then we may be able to control climate, so that we can make sure that it doesn't change for the worse.

Science is the best way of determining whether we are capable of changing the climate, by analysing what has happened in the past with regards to the things we have created and destroyed: gases, forests, pollutants, etc.

Scientists are the people who investigate our capacity to influence and control the climate. These scientists are the best chance we have of ensuring that we don't suffer a global climate disaster. So take heed of their findings.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

The climate is changing all the time, sometimes in the favor of mostly furless primates, sometimes not.

In a lot 2 blocks from my dads house in northern Florida, the 10 year old AlphaGeek used to dig up fossilized sand dollars. I was pretty sharp for a kid, but even an average 10 year old would be able to tell you that there had been ocean floor right there many years ago.

Climate changes, whether man does it or not. Plan accordingly, because the Evil Religious Zealot Racist Republican Homophobic Climate change will pull a slow motion Katrina on our coastal cities at some point or another regardless of our actions today or tomorrow.

History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man




..and yes I quoted BOC. So what? LOL

 

[PurpleBuddha]

That's why this Global Warming THEORY is such a huge issue these days. For those in the scientific community who are adamant about claiming that it is fact, and therefore, closed off for debate, as Al Gore would lead us all to believe, is not keeping with what science is all about.

You do realize when you call it a theory you are exalting it to a very high pedestal. A theory is the current best explanation behind a mountain of evidence. If you are conceding that there is a mountain of evidence for Global Warming and that science is positing the best current explanation out there for the evidence, why are you complaining?

Well, I think it's those of you in the scientific field who forget that all you are accomplishing is the creation of theories. Therefore all this talk about scientific fact, is a bunch a bullshit. Which is why for those of us who question your theories, get so frustrated when we get shut out of the debate for being "right-wing wackos" or such.

Questioning theories is great. If you really and seriously wish to do that, maybe you should think about becoming a scientist. It is their job after all. But questioning theories is not realy what you are doing here. Here you are making incorrect statements about science and then discrediting it based on your own set up. If you want people to stop calling you a wacko, then stop acting like one and learn to question science like a man. Why do you think you have to discredit science as a whole in order to attack a theory?

There is one thing that puzzles me about people like you. Why are you so anti-science? Serious, would you care to give us the back drop that has led to you hating and distrusting it to the point that you don't even understand it? I am truly interested.

Oh, and as to your point about theories doing nothing for us, where did you come up with that? There are many tangible benefits scientific theories have given us such as medical breakthrough and micro processing, just to name two. Theories improve our understanding of the world and that understanding is constantly being applied to new developments that can be see all around you. All you need to do is look around to see what I am talking about.