Genuine Scientific Mystery - The Pioneer Anomaly and Dark Matter / Energy

[tongodeon]

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

Comments

[ikkyu2]

You write this type of essay so very well. In my case, of course, you are preaching to the choir, and a very appreciative choir in my case. Bravo!

Induction is something that is important in science and in my line of work too. Given an effect - a whole, finished process - what are the conditions or presuppositions, the first causes or prior steps that must have been true in order to explain the observation?

As I apply induction to your essay, it occurs to me that, for it to make sense for you to post this here, there must be people reading your journal who are not members of "the choir" as you and I would define it. Do we think that's true?

[tongodeon]

it occurs to me that, for it to make sense for you to post this here, there must be people reading your journal who are not members of "the choir" as you and I would define it. Do we think that's true?I don't know anyone for which this entire post would be new information, but I know a few people who I thought would benefit from reading this

[tongodeon]

there must be people reading your journal who are not members of "the choir" as you and I would define it

see below

[ponsdorf]

Well said... but it's worth noting clearly that 'scientists' are merely human.

Not long ago a Mars mission was lost because someone tried to mix meters and feet (I think?).

Sounds almost as though you're talking about priests, religion, and faith.

Aside: When I worked for NASA we had this huge global map... noted on it was this: http://www.ll.mit.edu/ST/sbv/saa.html
Not on topic, just neat thing.

[tongodeon]

it's worth noting clearly that 'scientists' are merely human.

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

[ponsdorf]

Faith: 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions

Religion: 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faithGood enough to validate what I wrote. And I did say 'almost

[tongodeon]

Faith: 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions

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