Can you critique this for me (essay on what science is)

[Lusankya]

I wrote this the other night, for reasons that I only really vaguely recall, and was hoping to get some feedback on it. It's just supposed to inform people what science is and why science is important.

ON SCIENCE

WHAT IS SCIENCE?

Science is a methodology of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, which is the gathering of data based on observable, empirical and measurable evidence. This data can be gathered through observation and controlled and repeatable experimentation.

WHAT SCIENCE ISN’T

Science is not a religion. Science itself makes no claims about the universe, and the only assumption it makes is that the universe does not contradict itself.

Science is not just some wild ideas. Every scientific theory must be based on evidence. For any idea to be accepted by mainstream science it must not only be supported by existing facts, but must also have a sizeable body of evidence supporting it.

Science is not a system of morality. Scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive. According to the theory of gravity and Newtons laws of motion, if I drop a baby from a high building, the baby will fall down and hit the ground with a force that is likely to injure the baby. This does not make dropping babies off buildings moral. It is more a description of cause and effect.

WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?

A scientific theory is a naturalistic explanation for phoenomena. A scientific theory must fulfil several criteria:

1. It must make testable predictions about the world.
2. It must not contradict existing evidence.
3. It must be falsifiable.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN “TESTABLE PREDICTIONS”?

Well, first of all, the theory must predict things before the fact. Take the theory that if you go into the ocean, then you will get wet, (trivial, I know, but this example will suffice for illustrative purposes). If you live near the sea, then this theory is easily testable, and predicts what the outcome of the test will be: that is, you will get wet. On the other hand, the theory that if you go into the ocean, then you may or may not get wet (without any qualifiers to the theory) doesn’t actually predict anything.

The difference between the two theories is in what they say WON’T happen. The first theory not only says that you will get wet, but it also says that you won’t be dry. The second one on the other hand says that getting wet is a posibility, but also refuses to rule out being dry. Since being wet is a binary condition (you either are or you aren’t), the second one doesn’t actually give us any useful information at all, because it doesn’t rule out any possibilities at all. We certainly can’t use it to tell ourselves with any degree of certainty what will happen if we go in the ocean.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, “FALSIFIABLE”?

Falsifiability means that something can be proven wrong. The theory “there are invisible dancing unicorns somewhere in the universe” cannot be proven wrong, unless I have the ability to percieve every part of the universe at once. The theory that “there are NO invisible dancing unicorns anywhere in the universe” can be proven wrong without access to infinite, simply by providing evidence for one case of an invisible dancing unicorn. Once the evidence of invisible dancing unicorns is discovered, their existence stops being a theory and becomes a fact.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF

When making a claim (such as the claim that invisible dancing unicorns exist) it is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence. This means that without any evidence suggeting that something exists, the positions “X exists” and “X doesn’t exist” do not have equal value.

This is because the default is not the opposite of the claim, but rather the null hypothesis – that is nothing. The opposite of there being unicorns is not no unicorns – the opposite of there being unicorns is there being anti-unicorns. Both the unicorn and anti-unicorn hypotheses make claims regarding unicorns. The null hypothesis is the one which makes a neutral claim.



HOW DO I GO ABOUT CREATING A NEW SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR DISCREDITING AN OLD ONE?

There are three steps to this process. First of all, you have to find a phoenomenon that is not explained by the current theory. It is a really good idea if you research the current theory in depth before you do this, because otherwise you start saying things like “evolution is wrong because you don’t see monkeys turning into people *I'm a smarmy asshole*?” and everyone immediately starts wondering if you were homeschooled by illiterate fundamentalists. Often what you percieve to be a flaw in a theory is actually a flaw in your understanding of the theory.

But let’s assume that you understand the theory and have found some rock-solid evidence that shows the old theory to be inaccurate. What’s next?

Well, what you have to do then, is come up with a new theory that incorporates BOTH the existing evidence and your new evidence. Unless you can do this, then the old theory will stand in as a placeholder until someone can work out the actual maths that explains both the old theory and the new theory.

An example of this kind of place-holding is the theory of electro-magnetism. This theory has one huge and blindingly obvious flaw: it doesn’t explain gravity, the strong force or the weak force. That’s huge! But nobody has figured out a unified field theory yet, so until one is developed, the obviously imperfect theories that we have now have to stand in their place, because they are the best we have.

The third step in creating a new scientific theory is that of peer review. Your theory can not only makes sense to you. It must also be scrutinised by the other leading scientists in your field of work. Whatever tests or observations you used to obtain your data must be repeated by others in order to be considered credible. This is an inbuilt double-checking mechanism. Some people try to be dishonest and by having the evidence examined by multiple people we can limit the chance of fabricated evidence being accepted for too long.

IF SCIENCE IS SO GREAT WHY ARE SCIENTISTS SOMETIMES WRONG?

Scientists are not sometimes wrong. Scientists are always wrong.

I bet you weren’t expecting that answer, were you?

As I mentioned before, the aim of science is to create a highly accurate model of the universe. In order to advance our understanding, we must always make one assumption: that our theories are not perfect. This means that to some extent, we must assume that any given scientific theory is wrong to some degree or another. The important thing to consider though is not the fact that the scientific theory and the non-scientific theory are both wrong, but rather that they are wrong to different degrees.

Remember that scientists are people too. Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they’re mistaken. But who points out the mistakes made by scientists? Other scientists, that’s who!

WHAT DO YOU MEAN WRONG BY DIFFERENT DEGREES?

While pretty much everything we believe and understand is wrong to some degree or another, some things are less wrong than others.

Let’s take the earth as an example.* Thousands of years ago, some primitive folks in the desert had a look at the earth, and thought to themselves, “Yep, that looks pretty flat.” Now, obviously the world isn’t flat, but they figured that after you levelled out all the hills and sand dunes and stuff, that what was left was pretty much flat.

They were wrong. Of course, they weren’t very wrong. When you’re looking from the perspective of a human, the earth may as well be flat. Most of our day-to-day measuring equipment (such as rulers and so on) doesn’t take the earth’s curvature into account. So they weren’t wrong by much.

Later on, some guys in togas noticed that when a trireme came in from the sea, the first thing you noticed was the sail. Because of this and other things, such as the difference in shadow length between places in Europe and Africa, they decided that the earth wasn’t flat. No. It was round.

They were wrong, but they were less wrong than the people in the desert, because the earth is more round than it is flat.

As it would happen, the earth bulges out at the equator. The earth’s curcumference around the equator is a few km greater than its circiumference around the poles. So perhaps we could say that the earth isn’t really round. It’s shaped a bit like a spinning top.

If we were to say that, we would be wrong. We would of course be less wrong than if we described the earth as being round, but we would still be wrong.

You see, the southern hemisphere is actually slightly bigger than the northern hemisphere. The average distance from the Earth’s centre for places in the southern hemisphere is about 2m greater than for places in the northern hemisphere. So the earth isn’t really shaped like a spinning top at all. It’s a bit pear-shaped.

Of course, if we were to say that, we would most likely be wrong too, but what we are doing with each new piece of information is becoming more accurate and less wrong. When I say that the Earth is a bit pear-shaped, I am wrong, but I am less wrong than the people in the desert thousands of years ago.

This is how scientific theories are developed. Each theory is wrong, but it is less wrong than the preceding theory.

*Thanks go to Isaac Asimov for providing this example. He also said it much better than I did. I was tempted to use my own example, but this one is really much more elegant, and requires less mathematics.



WHAT DOES SCIENCE SAY ABOUT GOD?

Nothing, until you claim that your God has an effect on the world. Once you make that claim, your god hypothesis becomes testable, and is thus subject to the burden of proof. If something contradicts your god hypothesis, then I’m afraid that as far as scientific theory and reality are concerned, your hypothesis is bunk.

I LIKE ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE

That’s nice. Just be aware that there is no objective evidence that it does anything more than a placbo. I am all for alternative medicine undergoing double-blind trials to determine its effectiveness.

The only problem with that is that if if passes the trials, it stops being alternative and conventional.

BUT WHAT ABOUT RESPECTING MY BELIEF?

Sometimes it’s possible to be just plain wrong. When your belief contradicts numerous facts, then your opinion is wrong. You have every right to hold that belief, but reality has no obligation to make you right.

For unfalsifiable opinions or beliefs, how seriously I will take them depends on whether your claim is trivial or extraordinary.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY TRIVIAL AND EXTRAORDINARY?

Trivial information is minor information that is quite plausible. Let us say that someone claimed to see a kangaroo at a certain place at a certain time. Let us also say that they didn't take a photo, so they can’t show us the kangaroo.

In the Australian countryside, such information would be quite plausible. Kangaroos are common in Australia, especially in the countryside. The information could be verified by going to the location and seeing if there were kangaroo tracks or stool, etc. but can’t really be falsified, since the kangaroo could easily have left no trace of its presence and without a time machine, we can’t check. Still, it’s pretty easy to believe. It’s not that important either, which makes it trivial.

But let us say that someone made the same claim, but in Alaska. One would be forgiven for being skeptical about this. Kangaroos are not native to Alaska, and are evolved to survive in quite different conditions. The claim is now much more extraordinary. Perhaps some information could be realeased to make it more trivial (such as a kangaroo escaping from a zoo), but absent such information, the claim of the kangaroo sighting is not particularly believable, especially if the kangaroo did not leave any evidence to collect..

What the more extraordinary claim requires is more extraordinary evidence in order to have equal validity. Some claims are far more extraordinary than the one listed above. For one thing, we know that kangaroos exist. The claim that invisible dancing unicorns exist (as mentioned above) requires even more extraordinary evidence. First it requires proof of unicorns existing, which is made more difficult by the fact that these unicorns are invisible. This limits the methods that we can use to investigate the unicorns to verify that they really are unicorns. They could be force fields. Or invisible horses with invisible horns tied around their heads. There are lots of possibilities which, given current knowledge, are more likely than invisible unicorns. Next, once their status as unicorns (which are invisible) has been established, we must also determine whether or not they’re dancing. Maybe they’re only jumping. Maybe they’re shaking because they’re cold.

Similar standards for evidence exist for other extraordinary claims that have no scientific backing. Depending on how extraordinary the claim is (which is in part related to how much the claim contradicts our fundamental knowledge of the universe), the standards of evidence may be even higher than that for invisible dancing unicorns.

BUT AREN’T YOU BEING DOGMATIC?

Not at all. This is the definition of dogmatic, as given by Merriam-Webster:

1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts <a dogmatic critic>
2 : of or relating to dogma

Now consider what I consider to be the most appropriate definition of rigorous:

3: scrupulously accurate : PRECISE

Science is rigorous but not dogmatic. The aim of science is to create a highly accurate model of the universe. While data must be tested rigorously, and are kept to certain standards, no scientific theory is superior to real facts. While theories may change, the facts are static, except insofar as new evidence leads us to reexamine our classification. If new information is brought to life, of course I will change my opinion – something that would not happen if I were being dogmatic – but the new evidence must be compelling.

(An example of the facts supposedly “changing” is in the recent taxonomic reclassification that has been going on since genetic testing became widespread. Prior to genetic investigation, species were judged only on external characteristics, which led to some misclassification when some animals were considered to be related due to superficial differences. The fact of these superficial characteristics didn’t change, but the new data did lead to a refinement of taxonomic charting.)

WHY WON’T YOU ADMIT THAT YOU’RE WRONG (ABOUT SCIENCE)?

I would be quite happy to admit that I am wrong, but under certain conditions. You must convince me not only that science is not perfect, but that your methodology (whatever that is) provides a better understanding of the world. You must also convince me that following your methodology provides a better outcome for people than following science.



HOW DOES SCIENCE RELATE TO THE WORLD I DEAL WITH?

Just look around your house, and see all of the technology that is based on scientific principles. If you are reading this on an older monitor, your screen is taking advantage of our knowledge of the atom, accelerating electrons onto the screen in order to make a picture. There is a lot to thank science for, if you know where to look.

BUT WHAT HAS SCIENCE EVER DONE FOR ME?

In the few centuries since the scientific method was developed, science has helped to make great advances in the quality of life of people all over the world.

THE BIG THREE:

1. vaccinations
2. sanitation
3. antibiotics

These are all actually outgrowths of germ theory. The discovery that disease is caused by living organisms has allowed us to develop better measures to defeat the disease. This means that we can live healthier (and thus happier and better) lives, and are less likely to die in childhood from what are now preventable causes. Here are some examples

Prior to the advent of vaccination, smallpox killed 1/10 of the children in Russia, and left many more scarred and pockmarked. Often the disease would claim a child’s eye, leaving them partially blind. It was a disease in which even the mildest form had a 3% mortality rate. Today, of course, this disease is only a memory, but other potentially fatal or crippling diseases, such as polio, hepatitis, measles or whooping cough still require vaccinations to be prevented. The recent decrease in vaccinations has led to an increase in measles outbreaks in the last few years, which have included several deaths (all children, with the victims either being unvaccinated or not yet finished their vaccination courses).

Improvements in sanitation have led to huge benefits. One only has to look at the recent cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe, where the sanitation infrastructure has broken down to realise the benefit that an ample supply of clean water and proper treatment of sewerage can bring to society.

Antibiotics also have a huge effect on quality of life: it used to be that if you got injured, there was a good chance that if the initial wound didn’t kill you, the infection that followed it would. In fact, WWII was the first time in history in which more soldiers died on the battlefield than of infections obtained afterwards. Naturally, this life-saving technology exends to areas other than war. Broken arms from childhood falls and a prevention of deafness from ear infections are other areas where antibiotics are useful. There are some infections (such as viral infections and antibiotic-resistant bacteria) that cannot be treated with antibiotics, but without antibiotics, we could not treat any of these infections.

OTHER THINGS SCIENCE HAS HELPED CREATE

Mass transit: this allows us to live in cities, and gives us freedom of movement. It removes one of the primary limitations on personal mobility.

Communications: Not only gives us things like Facebook, but also things like “911” or “000”, or whatever the emergency line is in your country. It allows news to travel farther and more quickly and allows us to help disaster victims more quickly.

Refrigeration: Prevents food from going bad, and saves us from a multitude of gastronomic diseases. Also helps us to store food for longer so we run less risk of starvation. Not to mention icecream.

Electricity: Has a variety of uses, from lights to vacuum cleaners. Also allows us to use Communications and refrigeration.

There is, of course, much more, but to list it all would take time.

BUT YOU LISTED TECHNOLOGY, NOT SCIENCE

Yes. Technology is applied science. Without a knowledge of the underlying scientific principles, our modern technology could not exist. The one leads to the other.


For those of you who were unclear on this before, I hope this helps you to understand what science is and how it relates to you and your life. The scientific method has shaped modern society more than anything else: more than religion, more even than our political leaders, and as such, it is important to have a basic knowledge of what science is if you want to understand the world and culture that we live in fully.

[Shroom Man 777]

It is a very nice, concise, simple and friendly explanation for what science is - not too hard to understand for morons, but good enough to give us all the basics. I think I actually learned something from reading it!

I don't know what more could be done or added to it. There are no glaring flaws in it or anything, so I think it's good.

[mr friendly guy]

Pretty good and concise.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, “FALSIFIABLE”?

Falsifiability means that something can be proven wrong. The theory “there are invisible dancing unicorns somewhere in the universe” cannot be proven wrong, unless I have the ability to percieve every part of the universe at once. The theory that “there are NO invisible dancing unicorns anywhere in the universe” can be proven wrong without access to infinite, simply by providing evidence for one case of an invisible dancing unicorn. Once the evidence of invisible dancing unicorns is discovered, their existence stops being a theory and becomes a fact.

You might just want to tidy up the part where you say it stops being a theory and becomes fact. I think national geographic said it better, something along the lines of we consider it fact but with the proviso that we could be wrong, and the prevailing view can change in light of new evidence. Using your invisible unicorn example, it could be that the observation of the invisible unicorn turned out to be a well done hoax, thus the theory that "there are NO invisible dancing unicorns anywhere in the universe” becomes prominent again.

You might want to also give more examples of theories in real life that have changed with more evidence, for example creationism being replaced by evolution, Newtons law of motions being surpassed by general relativity for the motion of large objects etc.

[Lusankya]

Yeah. I agree that the falsifiability bit is the weakest section. I might fix that up a bit at some stage, though there's no rush - I don't have class or anything any more.

I was thinking of putting a few examples of changing theories (personally I was thinking of our concept of light, since I actually remember the double slit experiment from high school), but I thought that at 3,200 words, it was heading into tl;dr territory.