Sunday, March 20, 2011
Weird Science
I'm tempted to add editorial comment that there is now, apparently, scientific 'dogma', or that, like every other field of study, science is done by humans, or that the worst scientific insult is to call someone religious, but none of that really applies. Just take this for what it is—a very weird email.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Equating the Journal of Cosmology to science would be like adding the 9/11 truthers to the official September 11 attack investigation.
If one cites The Journal of Cosmology as a representative for science then one could also use homeopathy and alchemy.
Just to publish Hoover's "paper" is indication enough that the Journal is not creditable and this crazy email is just icing on the cake.
This is not science.
Like I said in the intro, I'm not sure any conclusions can be drawn here other than this is a weird and humorous letter coming from a mind that was quite troubled at the time. If I had indexed the post it would have been 'funny human foibles'.
As to science or not, let's just say that science is what we say it is. While we didn't make up the universe, we did make up science and we will ultimately decide what has enough evidence to be considered scientifically true.
The question of evidence of life from space comes up every few years. Real scientists have long debated the evidence. If anyone is interested in seeing the evidence and/or arguments, search for "carbonate globules" or "cell-like fossils in meteors".
My comment was not pertaining your post itself but instead, informing readers (all 3 of us) that the email and the Journal mentioned in said email was not representative of science but more in the realm of creationism pseudoscientific papers and the Wakefield paper. Just because a website calls itself a scientific journal doesn't make it so.
Commenting on your comment. Stating that "let's just say that science is what we say it is" is relativist hooey. I am pretty sure that if the scientific community (based on enough evidence, in their eyes) decided that hugging spent uranium fuel would prolong a person's life and make them dream of gummy bears, wouldn't change the fact ionization energy is tearing the person's DNA to shreds. A rose by any other name... Or conversely, using the word "science" do not make it so, those holographic bands pro athletes and people buy for $60 doesn't prove itself by using "Science" in its description, nor does acupuncture, nor young earth hypothesis etc.
Finally, meteorite debate isn't really a debate, nothing new has been brought to the table since '96 with McKay's "Possible Relic Biogenic Activity in Martian Meteorite ALH84001" published in a reputable journal, which is not much proof of martian life since the marks of the rocks have plenty of equally plausible non-biology explanations as rebuttal papers illustrated. Even the McKay paper acknowledges this. The main debate is how many papers are going to take this inconclusive piece of evidence as proof martian life exists.
OK, we've had a good laugh at the email, but now you've shifted the subject to what science is and what constitutes evidence for science. I said "science is what we say it is" and "we will ultimately decide what has enough evidence to be considered scientifically true." I'm surprised you think that is "relativistic hooey." In fact I am quite sure it will hold true in this case of whether there is life beyond earth. We will decide based on evidence received—which is pretty scanty thus far.
Your argument:
"…hugging spent uranium fuel…dream of gummy bears…wouldn't change the fact that…energy is tearing a person's DNA to shreds."
So, you've made up a possible outcome of hugging fuel rods and compared it to years of scientific evidence. We have found no evidence about gummy bears in this scenario, but did about DNA.
You contradict your own argument. Out of all the things we could say about hugging spent uranium, we, in the name of science—because of evidence found—came up with a conclusion about DNA. We definitely have decided what science is in this case. And we decided against dreaming of gummy bears.
The same with holographic bands, acupuncture, and young earth. We haven't gathered much evidence to establish a scientific principle about any of them.
Here is my argument:
Every single principle, law, theorem, or rule—yes, for every single one, we have decided that there is enough evidence to call it valid science. Now, I admit that this doesn't a priori prove that science is and forever will be what we say it is, but you must admit that thus far the weight of scientific evidence is on my side.
To clarify: The universe, most scientists agree, exists; science is our means of understanding it. This is not semantics. It is the means of understanding.
Now, to follow up on the amount of evidence there is concerning possible life beyond earth. I agree with you. To me the evidence is pretty scarce. But just because the Journal of Cosmology looks like a porn site, and its editor seems like a kook, don't confuse the media with the message. Here is a readable discussion on the topic.
This discussion would go better over a beer. My complete thought process has been sent via email since I am super wordy, baba's gmail account. Also, the Journal of Cosmology Website is far crapper than any porn website. Why Leila Battison published in the Journal is beyond me, not sure what her supervisor, Martin Brasier was thinking. Here is the start of my thought process-
"As to science or not, let's just say that science is what we say it is. While we didn't make up the universe, we did make up science and we will ultimately decide what has enough evidence to be considered scientifically true."
My interpretation of the statement above was influenced in part by our previous discussion of "What is Evidence?"-
Your statement- since science is made up, I interpreted you arguing that so too can evidence (or our definition of evidence), what if “science” (“science”-whatever we choose it to be) decided 'evidence' was anecdotal, such as one person who lived to be 100 and dreamt of gummy bears or acupuncture deemed to work based on the 'evidence' that the majority of the population says it does. Or that since more of the world's population uses holistic medicine that is proof it works. Or 'evidence' that the universe is static because in the future all galaxies other than local are receding faster than the speed of light. This however cannot be true...
If it is one of your beers, then, for sure.
I wanted to weigh in here on a couple of points. I must confess, I know nothing about this. I don't know what the Journal of Cosmology is (or is it Cosmetology). I don't know who Richard Hoover is, and am unfamiliar with his paper. Maybe not knowing made it funnier. I actually thought the email was some kind of hoax a la Alan Sokal.
Even better was the first comment to Dobbs. A few nuggets:
"It's quite obvious to anyone perusing their comments that they both jump straight into denial of the paper without being objective and fair, using Dr Hoovers obvious lack of tidiness in the image layout and somewhat unorthodox methods of explanation of his methodology in ascertaining his findings, as the justification for a total lack of evidence to support his claims." (emphasis mine)
I'm trying to imagine what "unorthodox methods of explanation" Hoover uses, and his "obvious lack of tidiness in the image layout" speaks for itself.
And the other great line: "Ms Redfield is obviously biased and perhaps a closet lesbian...." Oh, of course, that explains it. And finally, who is Dr. Wickramasinghe? That's got to be a made up name. That's like being named Dr. Dr. Schnitzelcrackengeschiefmeyer.
(to be continued)
This is what I really wanted to comment on: what is science. I see the old debate re-emerged, and I didn't want to lose the opportunity to get in my two-cents' worth.
I don't have a complete explanation for this, but science is neither nature inscribing itself on our minds, as it really is, nor is it, to use Pete's phrase, relativist hooey.
Mostly, it's a dangerous thing to think that we have got hold of something that is absolutely true. That's when science stops. Science is never absolutely true. It's driven by nature, but it's also driven by the human mind, and the desire to make human sense out of the world.
On the other hand, we can't say that, because of our fundamental ignorance, every crackpot theory is now valid. That's the argument of the creationists: their view is as valid as Darwin's and should be taught alongside of Darwin. We have so much to learn and so little time, it seems like a colossal waste of our precious moments to be studying up on creationism, or the theory that the moon is just a small disk circling a few hundred feet above the north pole.
Of course, that leave open the question of what is worthwhile inquiry and what is not. Like, I said I really don't have an explanation.
Yes, we took this off line, but my concern is when science is considered dogma, not inquiry.
It may (or may not) be all right to believe in a heaven (i.e. the Truth to which science will lead us), but don't let that idea of heaven keep us from continually examining the evidence as faithfully as we can. And, yes, sometimes it's difficult to decide what is worthwhile study and what is not. Creationism is easy—as the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. That there are 11 dimensions in our universe—the jury is still out.
I hasten to add, do not underestimate science. Its methods have proven by far—by far—the best way to understand the universe.
Perhaps the success of science has led to its godlike stature, but at the moment, nothing can beat its methods—nothing comes even close. Well, pure mathematics is in the running, but typically science is needed to validate mathematics.
"Mrs. Redfield is obviously biased and perhaps a closet lesbian…." — classic!
It reminds me of one of Vonnegut's books where a character announces he can tell an author is gay from his index.
I'm still having my honeymoon with James Carse. For his purposes, he defines a "belief system" as a comprehensive network of ideas about what one thinks is absolutely real and true. Within that system, everything is explained. All the ideas within the belief system are consistent and -- as long as you stay within the system -- perfectly rational. You know exactly how far to go with your beliefs and when to stop your thinking. True believers have an answer for everything, and no argument, no amount of evidence, can ever shake their belief.
A belief system is usually defined by a single absolute authority, a person or a text. Belief systems tend to be short lived because they ultimately cannot bear up against the onslaught of reality.
There are all kinds of belief systems: Nazism, Maoism, Serbian nationalism, free-market capitalism, materialism, American triumphalism.
Here, we get to science. Carse says that science is a point of view and not a belief system, or it shouldn't be a belief system. In fact, it's the opposite of a belief system. Science is always questioning itself, and tells you not to rely on authority.
That, of course, doesn't mean that scientists never have their own belief systems. In fact, Carse takes science to task for its recent attacks on religion. By drawing a line and saying that religion stands in opposition to science, the scientific religious critic ends up turning science into a belief system: a system which cannot tolerate religious ideas within its internally consistent belief structure.
Post a Comment