Genuine Scientific Mystery - The Pioneer Anomaly and Dark Matter / Energy
I've occasionally heard scientists criticized for not appreciating mystery. "Scientists want to take apart something that seems unusual or counterintuitive. They want to explain and measure and figure it out. They don't appreciate mystery in the world. They can't accept things they can't explain or don't know
( Read more... )
It's not just worth noting. The reason why it's necessary to have all these rules and procedures and processes are that scientists are merely human. Evidence and reproducibility and peer review are the most effective safeguards against human failure that anyone has been able to find. If scientists weren't mere humans we wouldn't need all this procedure and they'd be right all the time and from the beginning.
Sounds almost as though you're talking about priests, religion, and faith.
It sounds like you've not only missed the central point of this post but are using a completely novel definition for the word "faith".
In this post I've taken great pains to explain that science is based on empirical evidence that is independently reproduced and peer-reviewed. Its theories are strongly validated by prospective and retospective studies by skeptics whose participation is welcomed as a necessary part of the process. Eventually the skeptics in the community are convinced and consensus is achieved.
This is why science isn't "faith". You don't need faith to believe in the influence of the pioneer anomaly or dark matter - you have a body of empirical, peer-reviewed evidence that you can examine or a set of observations and experiments that you can perform if you have any doubt. Scientific claims are not only verifiable but strongly, empirically proven in a way that religious claims are not.
The scientific process bears scant resemblance to any religion I have ever known. Not that it has to be one or the other. If priests strengthened their claims with these procedures they would be scientists *and* priests.
Reply
Religion: 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Good enough to validate what I wrote. And I did say 'almost'.
Regardless, I did understand your point. I just don't feel a religious zeal when talking about human endeavors and you sounded 'almost' like you do.
The first step in problem solving is CORRECTLY defining the problem. The foundation for that notion (and fact) is that humans make mistakes, even savants. Many 'scientists' don't even come up to that level.
Both the PA and dark energy/dark matter interests me greatly, and most certainly the answer(s) will be found in scientific pursuit and not in some church. I get it!
But the checks and balances that you suggest exists doesn't mean that the answers MUST be correct. Only that we may get a working theory that'll last until someone down stream finds another.
BTW, found the link:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco991110.html
Reply
That's "loyalty", "fidelity", and "sincerity". And it's true, I am loyal to scientific principles, the same way that religious people are loyal to their faith or my friend Betsy is loyal to the Kansas City Chiefs. It's true that scientists are loyal to their method the way that religious people are loyal to theirs. We both also wear pants, but you wouldn't say "you're wearing pants like a priest". The similarity has to be relevant.
Religion: 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
You're defining "faith" as "loyalty" or "fidelity", then you're saying "religion" is any principle to which someone is loyal or faithful.
That's an unconventional definition because it's overly broad; under that definition my "religion" might just as easily be matrushkaka, Star Wars, fairness, private gun rights, Japanese social structure, or the Toto washlet. And if that's your point that's fine - all those things are "religions". But I don't think that's your point.
Give your "faith" definition another try. Give specific thought to what a "leap of faith" entails. Where are we leaping from and to?
Reply
Nah, those came from M-W online I, merely quoted. Fuss at them if you disagree.
My point was, and still is, that there is a risk in attributing science and scientists with impossible standards. Your post came near that.
Reply
Ah, good. Now that I found your source I can tell you which definition you're ignoring:
2 b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Science doesn't just offer proof: science is the standard of proof by which evidence is judged. (empiricism, peer review, reproducibility) Standards of proof and evidence are sorely lacking in religion. If religious people adopted the scientific standard for proof and evidence then they wouldn't just be similar to scientists, they would be scientists.
there is a risk in attributing science and scientists with impossible standards
What "impossible standards" are you talking about? Scientific standards are practical and scientific results are *always* qualified with error bars. The whole process of calculating those error bars is a science in itself.
Reply
I didn't ignore a thing. You were fussing about my use of certain words - my usage was correct, but not what you would have chosen.
There's a Zen koan (I think) that seems applicable: 'one can not translate the sound of rain'.
Moving on.
Reply
And hey, I'm right-handed. Just like most religious zealots.
my usage was correct, but not what you would have chosen.
Your usage is correct, but so overly broad that it doesn't actually prove anything. Science is a religion, along with matrushkaka, Star Wars, NASCAR, right-handedness, fairness, private gun owners, Japanese social structure, and the Toto washlet. By your correct yet unbelievably expansive definition I'm not just a religious zealot, I'm also in extremely good company.
Reply
To repeat myself a second time: I totally, totally agree with you. Science is the most effective process by which faulty, deluded, mistake-addled humans can discover knowledge. The scientific method including replication and peer review are necessary because most scientists make so many mistakes. The scientific method is the most effective method anyone has found to keep science accurate, honest, and objective. The method does not make scientists inerrant is what makes science work in spite of the flawed, deluded, biased scientists who work within its limits.
But the checks and balances that you suggest exists doesn't mean that the answers MUST be correct. Only that we may get a working theory that'll last until someone down stream finds another.
Absolutely. I wrote about this in an earlier post. Current scientific theories are not "correct", they are simply the most correct theories we've found so far. Old theories are not "incorrect", they are less accurate theories superceded by more accurate theories.
And that's another thing that utterly separates religion from science. Religion actually *does* claim to know the truth. It's a static state, not a process, and it's a realm of absolutes, not relative certainties. You'll never hear a priest say "our best data indicates with a 75% likelihood that God created the firmament one day after he said Let There Be Light". It came from God not Man. It's correct and perfect, period.
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion." - Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address US astronomer & popularizer of astronomy (1934 - 1996)
Reply
I am, admittedly, unsure exactly what we are debating. Religion has it's place, as does science. Either pursued with too much zeal risks becoming awful things. I guess I don't see the issue as either/or.
BTW: The Nazi's perpetrated horrific acts in the name of science, I believe some of Mengele's work is still used as reference material?
If some 'scientist' decides that the answer he's seeking is worth risking my life I'll opt out. If some religious zealot decides I need to be burned at the stake I'll opt out. It's not apples and oranges when reaching those extremes.
It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion. Einstein
Reply
I think that's the reason why religious people feel so threatened by science. It's a vastly more reliable and satisfying way to resolve and eliminate some of those mysteries. Not all of human experience, of course. There's a whole lot that science is completely unable to test or verify or comment on (that stuff being "not science") but science has gotten quite good within the area of its competency.
Reply
But it finally occurred to me that there is a point of reference you and I might agree on vs. science. A consensus is not to be confused with a fact. I'm ashamed to admit that I caught a moment of Rush Limbaugh when he said it. It was a genuine accident on my part. I do not listen to talk radio. I was in my truck and it just happened while I was radio surfing. I don't even know what he was generally talking about.
Reply
Well sure. Everything taken too far becomes a problem. Science, religion, alcohol, politics, guns, fishing, NASCAR, rubber wetsuits, picnic tables. Everything. It's the end, not the means. When someone takes a thing too far it's a problem with the person(s), not the thing.
Reply
Leave a comment