Questioning Science

[Maharg67]

I have studied scientific methodologies at university, the histories of science and technological development, The history of science was about the way that 'science' arose into existence, into general acceptance and in importance to a modern technological world. I gained a great appreciation of science.

 

Yet I like the idea also of questioning the limitations of science, the arrogance of science that sometimes arises and the many misunderstandings of science that take place like the mixing up of well founded scientific theories with facts. Actual scientific facts are a lot fewer than many assume and calling something a well found scientific theory does not belittle it.

 

Science is best when it is honest, self aware, willing to be self critical and able to question its own assumptions; with out this there is no real progress or at least progress becomes more difficult.

 

Orthodox science has often fought against new breakthroughs that have led to big changes in society, which have become orthodox. It is ironic that often the new will become the orthodox and will be a barrier to yet newer developments, challenges, in science. With out becoming swamped with a flood of pseudoscience and poor scientific research, I think it is very important that science remain open to new ideas, to challenges, even to ideas that seem wildly improbable; remember how many scientific breakthroughs were at first met with ridicule such as the discovery of microbiological organisms effecting health and the discovery of X-rays that led to the important medical use of X-ray machines.

 

Science needs to remain critical, open, also to avoid the unquestioning acceptance of poor theories. After X-rays were discovered, the idea was pushed of natural energy rays, N-rays, but these were never established even as a strong scientific theory let alone as a 'fact'. What if the idea of N-rays had been blindly accepted and become 'orthodox'. Then it would have become difficult for scientists to question, let alone debunk, the idea.

 

Every so often I like to look at questions, debate subjects, that go outside of accepted science; I think that such is not only part of healthy debate but is also part of free speech. Yet too often I have seen such debates quickly become negative and even personal. I hope that this debate remains positive and free from trolling and flaming.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Maharg67

[DeadMansFist849]

Of course we should question and critique science. That's how we improve it. For example, if a study that's supposed to be about the general population of a certain country, is only conducted on a small sample of a narrow subset of the population, we can't make generalisations based on it, and it's only right if that data isn't used to support any particular assertions.

[Vagrant0]

Science exists to be questioned, there just usually isn't someone around with the time to explain how you're wrong.

 

The problem is that in some cases science has tried to quantify things that are very difficult to quantify, doesn't take into account social implications, and at higher ends becomes extremely elitist to where bad science is applauded and good science is buried just because of politics or affiliations.

[Vindekarr]

My mother is a scientist in the field of psychology and childhood developement, and she always told me, with regards to science as a concept, that if you don't question everything, then you're doing it wrong. That neither a result or preexisting concept can be treated as concrete, and that you should always consider the current "fact" of reality to be a fluid entity, changing as our knowledge grows.

 

For my part, I have a great deal of interest in science, but I believe that if it should ever become above doubt, it will cease to function. Science is at it's core, the art of "how long is this string, how heavy is this rock, how does the sun work" It's the art of asking questions, and at it's core, is reliant on being questioned. How much progress would we have made if scientists stopped re-researching previous discoveries? if we simply assumed Einstein was correct and never took a second look at his theories, physics would fail. Science needs doubt, to be questioned, or else it cannot fulfil it's potential.

 

On a more philosophical note, I think we should always question the world around us, it's how we learn, and if we don't learn, we don't grow. This applies to both "scientific" fields, and to politics and our very culture. Science has proven many times that what we consider a stable fact is infact, something entirely different, even the "laws of physics" may become outdated and quaint one day. Nothing is certain and nothing is forever, thinking something is an immutable fact is like trusting a rusted-through bridge.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Vindekarr

[sukeban]

I wholeheartedly agree with all those above, and especially with the sentiment that science is at its worst (beyond irrelevant, and actually impeding the search for knowledge) when it becomes politicized--one way or the other.

 

Global warming seems an easy test case, wherein the notion of anthropogenic climate change is very much the vogue (and IMO, rightly so) in *most* scientific communities, so much so that researchers might bake their conclusions to harmonize with (or to one-up) the established narrative of the phenomenon. On the other hand, you have "scientists" funded by oil companies actively engaged in "debunking" said narrative because it is... "convenient" for their own favored narrative that fossil fuels have nothing to do with climate change.

 

I will grant that science has likely always suffered--to a degree--from situations such as this (Copernicus et al), but these days the phenomenon seems to be reaching new lows. Whether it is climate change, biology (several GOP would-be senators misfired on basic human reproduction), or Fox News viewers "not trusting" the "liberal" presidential polling results, the "skepticism" of science is reaching a high-water mark... at least amongst a certain segment of us. This is not particularly healthy for any sort of constructive dialogue in the realm of public policy, as to have compromise, both sides must first agree as to the "rules of the game" as they were. For many centuries now, those "rules of the game" have been science, the final arbiter of factual dispute. I personally fear for the trajectory of our discourse when one side argues with statements rooted in the measurable, quantifiable, and verifiable--whilst the other argues with their "gut" and "instinct" and "faith" (usually vis-a-vis secular things like the relative merits of tax cuts). This isn't meant to be a dig at religion--as I find the right's aversion to the secular application of data to be more troubling, TBH--but more of a general alarm at this looming and seemingly intractable epistemological crisis.

Edited December 27, 2012 by sukeban

[Vagrant0]

whilst the other argues with their "gut" and "instinct"

The problem is not the gut, instinct, or faith, but rather what they are basing those things on. In most cases this usually ends up being secularized notions that were drilled into being through physical or emotional abuse devoid of any basis beyond the intentions of the one doing the drilling. You really can't blame them, they just had bad teachers who didn't know any better or who didn't care to consider alternative theories or all those troublesome quantitative evidence-like things. In many ways it isn't too different from an elderly person (or even young children) who denounces computers, and will smack a monitor or pound on the keyboard when the actual computer is slow. All of their life experiences suggest that smacking some part of the device (or person) is a perfectly reliable way to solve whatever the problem is, and when it doesn't work, you aren't hitting it hard enough, or in the right spot.

 

And even beyond faith and politics, this is the way it usually is, and the way it will usually be until there is something drastic, and usually traumatic to cause a change in the paradigm. The last major paradigm shift happened in WWI and WWII when the very nature of the world shifted from an agrarian lifestyle with an emphasis on practical (mechanical, natural, mystical) knowledge, to an industrialized lifestyle with an emphasis on intellectual (mathematics, science, philosophy) knowledge. And in order for that to happen, a quarter of the world had to be flung into destruction and chaos to a degree where the old way of living was disrupted to a point of no longer being practical. It is of course up to personal opinion as to which way of life is preferable, but what most don't care to admit is that in trying to go back to that "simpler time", you'd pretty much have to kill off half to two-thirds the world's population just to be able to feed everyone and scare the bejesus out of people enough to put the genie of science back in the bottle. The Dark Ages which followed the fall of Rome were not dark because someone forgot to pay the electric bill, they were dark because of the astounding amount of knowledge which was lost or destroyed. It is truly frightening to consider that there are some who are actively seeking to bring a second one into being just because they don't like where the story is going, or they aren't making enough money.

[brokenergy]

I thought it was a thread about "how science is evil" and "wrong" but it's more on the methodologies of science theory. Can you change it to suit your thread please? Least people get the wrong idea

[rizon72]

The one thing about science that sticks out the most for me comes from one of my Chemistry professors in college (he was also the dean). He told me while talking over lunch that he hated going to science conventions (which was part of his job). It confused me, as he loved science and all of its mysteries so I asked him why. He told me it wasn't the science, but the egos of the scientists he disliked. That is the biggest flaw of science, the scientist. They are human and they don't like to be told they are wrong or questioned (despite what they say) especially something they hold very dear to them. If you actually look at the history of science it takes a while for others to adapt to new ideas espeically if that idea conflicts with another, more widely held, idea.

[Lanceor]

Science exists to be questioned. The moment we stop questioning it is the moment that it stops growing. Science isn't just about coming up with new theories, but also disproving old ones.

 

For example, for many decades, Newton's Laws of Motion were considered absolutely accurate in predicting the motion of objects. As our measuring instruments became more accurate, it eventually became apparent that the predictions were out by the smallest amount. Eventually Einstein's theories of Relativity resolved the inaccuracy. Still today, the movement of some celestial bodies varies by a tiny amount as predicted even by Relativity, so I'm sure that eventually someone will come up with something that trumps Einstein's theories.

[Beriallord]

I think some of the workings of the universe, are beyond the capability of humans to unravel. The best we will be able to probably do is have a "general idea", etc theories. But we won't have the technological prowess or the ability to put all these theories to the test.

 

I think a whole lot of discretion needs to be considered when toying with the most dangerous forces of the universe like black holes, or antimatter. Either one of those forces could be capable of setting off a chain of events that could destroy the entire planet. They are trying to create micro black holes in the particle colliders around the world, and I sorta look at that like children playing with matches.

 

Do they even know what they are screwing around with or what the consequences are for playing with those forces? They claim they are only stable for a small fraction of a second, what are they trying to do, make a stable one? Then what? How do they control it? I really don't think they got any clue what they are toying with. I agree with the statement of "nothing ventured, nothing gained", but I also agree that "Curiosity killed the cat".

 

Personally, I think these forces should be left alone, because any attempt to harness these said forces will guarantee that something goes wrong, its called Murphey's law, and mistakes with forces that destructive, and there might not be any second chances. We harness nuclear power, and reactors are going to melt down, not a question of if, but when. If we screw around with black holes, or antimater, a screw up is guaranteed to happen, not if, but when.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Beriallord