Sir D:
You need to be exposed to better science. The chemistry and physics Nobels this year certainly qualify.
Let's look (so to speak) at dark energy for a moment. When I was learning physics, back in the medieval period (c. 1980) the term didn't exist and the concept barely did, and only at the margins of the field.
Now it's considered a very strong theory, since it predicts experimental results well. There are variations and rivals, but they don't work as well, given what we know at the moment.
As more data, better data, different data accumulate, that may change. Or not. But what DIDN'T happen was everyone in physics and astronomy throwing up their hands and deciding that since they had been wrong about this pivotal aspect of their study, they had to abandon everything else too. In other words, even a discovery of this magnitude doesn't invalidate the rest of physics.
With dogma, such separability is, shall we say, harder to come by.
Religion and Science
That's fine and good that within the hallowed halls where scientists dwell people keep an open mind about things. But the face presented to the rest of us, that is to say, to those of us further down the food chain (ie during teacher training or via media) is quite a different picture.
Obviously I am painting with a wide brush, which I hate to do. But the point remains that what it looks like from the outside is that scientific knowledge is anything but open to debate; even, it would appear given the experience of the Nobel prize winner, by those with the right credentials. That is, of course, until someone manages to prove the opposite of what was believed to be true all along.
ETA cross posted with river, apologies: It is that in between time, between deciding a theory is sound -- or rejecting a theory as unsound -- and proving otherwise that defines most of our experience of the scientific world. To say that exclusion is a part of it, as with some religion, is not much of a stretch.
Obviously I am painting with a wide brush, which I hate to do. But the point remains that what it looks like from the outside is that scientific knowledge is anything but open to debate; even, it would appear given the experience of the Nobel prize winner, by those with the right credentials. That is, of course, until someone manages to prove the opposite of what was believed to be true all along.
ETA cross posted with river, apologies: It is that in between time, between deciding a theory is sound -- or rejecting a theory as unsound -- and proving otherwise that defines most of our experience of the scientific world. To say that exclusion is a part of it, as with some religion, is not much of a stretch.
Last edited by SirDennis on Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Carl Sagan once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Schechtman's initial result was one such extraordinary claim. He saw something that, based on the understanding of crystallography at the time, should have been flat-out impossible. Parsimony therefore dictates that he fouled up (it happens). But it's hard to argue with a diffraction pattern. Also, and this is key, other groups reproduced the work in their own labs and a theoretical model to explain how what they were seeing was even possible was found. So, though there were guys like Pauling who went to their graves loudly objecting to Schechtman's work, everyone else came around. Eventually, they did what they always do when someone comes up with something so spectacular it has to be wrong but ends up being right: they gave him the Nobel Prize.
And they really gave it to him just because he was right about this. As I understand it, quasicrystals don't do much more than decorate a mental shelf of scientific curiousities. They are cool only because they weren't supposed to even exist. You gotta acknowledge the man who found them.
As for physicists and their arrogance...oh my, is my field littered with the crow they've ended up eating in the past 20 years. Poor guys have been reduced to listening to, and even hiring, people like me.
And they really gave it to him just because he was right about this. As I understand it, quasicrystals don't do much more than decorate a mental shelf of scientific curiousities. They are cool only because they weren't supposed to even exist. You gotta acknowledge the man who found them.
As for physicists and their arrogance...oh my, is my field littered with the crow they've ended up eating in the past 20 years. Poor guys have been reduced to listening to, and even hiring, people like me.
When you can do nothing what can you do?
Makes sense River. The Nobel is sort of like a consolation prize for putting up with all the bias along the way.
What I am driving at is Today, the scientific community enjoys (employs, wields) the type of agency that religious institutions (say the Roman Catholic Church) used to. Leaving the implication that agency facilitates lording over others aside, rather focusing instead on the individual's choice in response to said agency, if that individual does not accept the prevailing notions of what is believed to be true about the world, they place themselves at great risk of being ridiculed, or worse.
Science differs from and is superior to religion, in the minds of many, because it is believed to be rational. This necessarily means that for many religion is not rational. For many, science has replaced religion as the system of thought and belief of choice. But its function, the agency it has been given, is not all that different from what came before. Different masters, same social relationship. The fact that so much of science rests on ideas that will be disproved or modified some day makes it that much worse of a master imho.
What I am driving at is Today, the scientific community enjoys (employs, wields) the type of agency that religious institutions (say the Roman Catholic Church) used to. Leaving the implication that agency facilitates lording over others aside, rather focusing instead on the individual's choice in response to said agency, if that individual does not accept the prevailing notions of what is believed to be true about the world, they place themselves at great risk of being ridiculed, or worse.
Science differs from and is superior to religion, in the minds of many, because it is believed to be rational. This necessarily means that for many religion is not rational. For many, science has replaced religion as the system of thought and belief of choice. But its function, the agency it has been given, is not all that different from what came before. Different masters, same social relationship. The fact that so much of science rests on ideas that will be disproved or modified some day makes it that much worse of a master imho.
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
As a means of explaining the material universe, science deserves that agency. It works better than any other model.
However, I would argue there are corners of the world, including, alas, much of the US, where your evaluation of the agency of science is not correct.
I'd also argue that science doesn't really have an "or worse" like religion did, and in some quarters, still does.
However, I would argue there are corners of the world, including, alas, much of the US, where your evaluation of the agency of science is not correct.
I'd also argue that science doesn't really have an "or worse" like religion did, and in some quarters, still does.
Um, no. It's a reward for finding something new and significant. The last is key. And, in science, a significant result is something that leads to a huge advance in human understanding and/or technology. Usually a mix of the two. In the case of this year's chemistry Nobel, it was purely an advance of understanding. Quasicrystals are a weird thing seen in metals but, AFAIK, no one's using them or trying to use them for anything.SirDennis wrote:The Nobel is sort of like a consolation prize for putting up with all the bias along the way.
Most people who get these endure less crap than Schechtman did, but most people who get these don't claim they'd seen or done something that was, by the understanding at the time, utterly and completely impossible. To understand the magnitude of what Schechtman's claim was, try tiling a tabletop with regular pentagons. You will quickly find you can't do it without making some of those pentagons irregular. Now imagine someone came to you and claimed they'd done just that. If you have a brain in your head, you will contest that claim. And if you've spent enough time on your own tiling projects, you'll contest it vigorously because you have that much more knowledge about tiling. But if that other guy's result holds up, you'll hopefully be man enough to pat them on the back and nominate them for something special.
So? If your result is good it'll come out right in the end.What I am driving at is Today, the scientific community enjoys (employs, wields) the type of agency that religious institutions (say the Roman Catholic Church) used to. Leaving the implication that agency facilitates lording over others aside, rather focusing instead on the individual's choice in response to said agency, if that individual does not accept the prevailing notions of what is believed to be true about the world, they place themselves at great risk of being ridiculed, or worse.
Why? Would you rather deny your eyes?. The fact that so much of science rests on ideas that will be disproved or modified some day makes it that much worse of a master imho.
Last edited by River on Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
When you can do nothing what can you do?
I am not holding religion up as a better way, a better model for defining social structures, far from it. Looking at the way religion has manifested over the centuries, there is no way I could do that, especially in the context of what I am saying about science.axordil wrote:As a means of explaining the material universe, science deserves that agency. It works better than any other model.
However, I would argue there are corners of the world, including, alas, much of the US, where your evaluation of the agency of science is not correct.
I'd also argue that science doesn't really have an "or worse" like religion did, and in some quarters, still does.
But to say that science is not making forays into defining cultural ethics, morality, laws and social relationships the way religion did before it might be an example of not being able to see the forest for the trees. Whether science is a better way than religion, or vice versa, I am not interested in that question.
SirD, I've always claimed that Bill Bryson's "A brief history of everything" should be standard reading for everyone in high school. So we *know* how much more remains to be done. It's so *exciting*. 
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
Clearly, River, it wasn't impossible. Yet on the basis that it was believed to be by the science community, the guy had to deal with a lot of negative attention. I believe this is important (in answer to your question "So?") for two reasons: one is the potential ridicule had to drive the guy away, discouraged, to be a used car sale person or something other than a scientist (tell me this never happens in real life.); two it demonstrates how belief, belief in what you are doing, plays a role in science.
I believe this covers your other question as well.
I believe this covers your other question as well.
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Science is certainly making inroads into behavioral areas, but as is its wont, it's doing so according to what empirical evidence can be brought to bear, in a process that doesn't have a clear end point.
Science *doesn't* rest on ideas that will be disproved or modified. Again: science *isn't* a body of knowledge, it's an *approach* that *yields* a body of knowledge. It rests on the scientific method, not on any specific piece of the knowledge; thus even when something like the discovery of dark energy invalidates or modifies part of the body of knowledge, the validity of the approach that creates the body of knowledge is unaffected.
Do not confuse the process and the product.
This is the equivalent of saying the fact that libraries may contain books that aren't all correct means *writing* is bad.The fact that so much of science rests on ideas that will be disproved or modified some day makes it that much worse of a master imho.
Science *doesn't* rest on ideas that will be disproved or modified. Again: science *isn't* a body of knowledge, it's an *approach* that *yields* a body of knowledge. It rests on the scientific method, not on any specific piece of the knowledge; thus even when something like the discovery of dark energy invalidates or modifies part of the body of knowledge, the validity of the approach that creates the body of knowledge is unaffected.
Do not confuse the process and the product.
The quasicrystal story, as told by someone (not Schechtman) who was there.
Twinning, by the way, is a rather annoying crystallographic phenomenon in which you have two crystal lattices on top of each other. To the naked eye, it looks like a single crystal. When you shoot a diffraction pattern, it looks like a single crystal. But then when you sit down to do the math and figure out what's in the crystal and where it is, weird things happen. When I was a grad student, I lived in fear of it. I am, to this day, not convinced my crystals didn't have a twinning problem, even though they passed all the twinning tests I threw at them. Eventually, I just had to grow better crystals.
It's easy to sit in your chair with your nose in the air and say "Clearly..." after the fact. When you're down in the lab faced with something you're sure can't be right, it's another story. They didn't even believe themselves until they'd run out of explanations. Only then did they say, "Okay. We've seen five-fold crystallographic symmetry. How the **** is that possible?"
Twinning, by the way, is a rather annoying crystallographic phenomenon in which you have two crystal lattices on top of each other. To the naked eye, it looks like a single crystal. When you shoot a diffraction pattern, it looks like a single crystal. But then when you sit down to do the math and figure out what's in the crystal and where it is, weird things happen. When I was a grad student, I lived in fear of it. I am, to this day, not convinced my crystals didn't have a twinning problem, even though they passed all the twinning tests I threw at them. Eventually, I just had to grow better crystals.
It's easy to sit in your chair with your nose in the air and say "Clearly..." after the fact. When you're down in the lab faced with something you're sure can't be right, it's another story. They didn't even believe themselves until they'd run out of explanations. Only then did they say, "Okay. We've seen five-fold crystallographic symmetry. How the **** is that possible?"
When you can do nothing what can you do?
I'm not saying science is bad. I am saying that as an approach (and to the layman as a body of knowledge) the value placed on it as an arbiter of truth is out of proportion of late.axordil wrote:Science is certainly making inroads into behavioral areas, but as is its wont, it's doing so according to what empirical evidence can be brought to bear, in a process that doesn't have a clear end point.
This is the equivalent of saying the fact that libraries may contain books that aren't all correct means *writing* is bad.The fact that so much of science rests on ideas that will be disproved or modified some day makes it that much worse of a master imho.
Science *doesn't* rest on ideas that will be disproved or modified. Again: science *isn't* a body of knowledge, it's an *approach* that *yields* a body of knowledge. It rests on the scientific method, not on any specific piece of the knowledge; thus even when something like the discovery of dark energy invalidates or modifies part of the body of knowledge, the validity of the approach that creates the body of knowledge is unaffected.
Do not confuse the process and the product.
I wanted to add that I can see where in some cases it is not that there is shadowy cabal known as the scientific community ruling the rest of us with an iron sceptre. But rather, like some religions, science is sometimes pressed into the service of the real masters, whomever they are.
Just as a for instance take the science that supports the idea that human population growth is outstripping resources. Focusing on food alone this idea serves to mask the real problem that it is not profitable nor expedient to shift resources around to satisfy human need. This is a problem of greed, of capitalism, not of lack. And yet science serves to define the ethics behind accepting human suffering with the idea of scarcity.
As for social relationships, cast an eye over this thread. It drips with exasperation and in some cases ridicule. Had we been talking in the days of Galileo, the tables would be turned, but nothing really would have changed as it relates to how people feel about each other. The process, the means of bringing those feeling to bare is quite different, I'll grant you. (In the case of starving people all over the world, even that is debatable.) But will it always be this way? Science as we understand it today is still in its infancy.
-
Dave_LF
- Wrong within normal parameters
- Posts: 6804
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
- Location: The other side of Michigan
Really? My impression is that the idea of science as the highest authority on the matter of factual truth has fallen pretty badly out of fashion; to be replaced with the idea that everyone is entitled to his or her own Opinion, and that each individual's Opinion is just as valid as any other's.SirDennis wrote:I'm not saying science is bad. I am saying that as an approach (and to the layman as a body of knowledge) the value placed on it as an arbiter of truth is out of proportion of late.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46098
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Note: I fixed vison's post to put the statement of SirDennis's that she was quoting in a quote box, and fixed Dave's post to clarify that it was SirDennis that he was quoted, not vison
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Ok, ok... What Dave said has an element of truth to it though mileage may vary.
However when I speak of how science is perceived by the rest of us (ie non-scientists) it is not merely an opinion. And I am beginning to resent the implication that the ideas I hold true are simply a product of lack of exposure to good science, good literature about science, naivete, fear of the unknown, a predisposition against seeing myself as infinitely inconsequential in a cosmic sense (even though the Bible teaches me so) and so on.
"God is the creator of the universe" is no more an opinion than "nothing is faster than the speed of light" is an opinion. Both are arrived at, for some people, only after years of study and wrestling with such ideas. For other people, who have not studied, nor wrestled with either idea, either position can be taken (and are, both the Biblical, and the scientific) on faith. But for some reason, the second idea, even now in the presence of proof to the contrary, is more acceptable in mixed company. My concern is how long before the preference for one type of idea over the other type of idea becomes institutionalized (or more so than it has already?)
When I said the following a few pages back, no one batted an eye, even though many of the statements are debatable:
If I was to say, according to my sources (not just someone's opinion), that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, I am sure present company would have a lot to say about that.
The extent that someone feels justified in looking down on or rejecting outright one unprovable idea in favour of another unprovable idea is a measure of faith.
However when I speak of how science is perceived by the rest of us (ie non-scientists) it is not merely an opinion. And I am beginning to resent the implication that the ideas I hold true are simply a product of lack of exposure to good science, good literature about science, naivete, fear of the unknown, a predisposition against seeing myself as infinitely inconsequential in a cosmic sense (even though the Bible teaches me so) and so on.
"God is the creator of the universe" is no more an opinion than "nothing is faster than the speed of light" is an opinion. Both are arrived at, for some people, only after years of study and wrestling with such ideas. For other people, who have not studied, nor wrestled with either idea, either position can be taken (and are, both the Biblical, and the scientific) on faith. But for some reason, the second idea, even now in the presence of proof to the contrary, is more acceptable in mixed company. My concern is how long before the preference for one type of idea over the other type of idea becomes institutionalized (or more so than it has already?)
When I said the following a few pages back, no one batted an eye, even though many of the statements are debatable:
The last statement is particularly relevant to this current thread of the discussion.Faith is not the same as religion, nor even belief, nor is it an element of scientific inquiry or expostulation. Scientists never rightly can be said to proselytize nor can those who share their opinions or understanding. To suggest otherwise is potentially offensive. Science rests on observable phenomenon. When it does not, it is something other than science and should be rejected. Belief in an idea may be what motivates scientists to test the idea, but disbelief is just as powerful a motivator to do the same. Ideally ideas are approached from a neutral position. Knowing when to keep an idea or discard it is purely a function of statistical analysis. Assignment of value hardly ever, if at all, comes into it.
If I was to say, according to my sources (not just someone's opinion), that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, I am sure present company would have a lot to say about that.
The extent that someone feels justified in looking down on or rejecting outright one unprovable idea in favour of another unprovable idea is a measure of faith.