The Purpose of Science

[wackyvorlon]

Moved from The Million Dollar Challenge forum, as there is no claim being made in the OP.

I will say up front that I am not trained in the sciences, and as such my statements are my own opinion. If members of the forum who are more learned than I can interject and correct me, it is appreciated.

There appears to me to be a misunderstanding of science. It's not here to reinforce preexisting notions, or defend one's fondest beliefs. It is to unblinkingly challenge them, and seek the truth of the matter. Many years ago, a scottish man in England founded the first civil materials testing laboratory. He tested concrete, steel and other materials to determine strengths. His personal motto was engraved in limestone above the door: Facts Not Opinions.

That is the goal of science. In fact, the most wonderful thing is to perform an experiment, and find that it demonstrates a large fraction of what you know to be false. Look at the Rutherford back-scattering experiment. It contradicted the current atomic model of the time, that being the plum pudding model advanced by JJ Thompson as I recall. What was the reaction to this? They checked, to confirm that the results were valid. Did they try to suppress it? By no means! It was a moment of profound excitement and joy, simply because they had discovered that they were wrong.

As always, this is a human endeavour, and it is not completely immune to bias and ego. The worst scientists are those who grasp tightly to their beloved beliefs without regard for the evidence, and the best are those who readily abandon things now demonstrated to be wrong.

[Fnord]

... As always, this is a human endeavour, and it is not completely immune to bias and ego. The worst scientists* are those who grasp tightly to their beloved beliefs without regard for the evidence, and the best are those who readily abandon things now demonstrated to be wrong.

*These are not scientists, they are wooists - the meta-class of religionists. Their "science" is based upon faith, which only becomes stronger as more factual evidence is gathered and presented against it.

[MattC]

First, I am not entirely sure how this is a Challenge claim and therefore deserving of a space in this forum - nor is it a matter discussing the Challenge proper, therefore my confusion can only deepen. Do not be surprised if this thread is moved in the near future.

Second, it's important to consider that during the history of thought about the atom each individual theory of the time was considered "correct" - it fit the verifiable data known at the time and was therefore a solid theory. As new empirical data came along, the theory of the atom had to be adjusted to take into account this new data and here we are - with what we know today, our theory of the atom demonstrably works. New information may be produced tomorrow that will challenge our assertions, and if this data can be verified we will naturally change them to fit the new conclusions.

Science places a greater value upon demonstrable correctness rather than ego.

~ Matt

[wackyvorlon]

The thread may very well be in the wrong place, I'm by no means certain of it. I started the thread because in other threads discussing the challenge, there is this expectation that the JREF will try to change the experiment in some way to foul the results. I am of the opinion that that is not only in violation of the spirit of JREF, but also of the intention of the challenge.

The beauty of science is that you need to trust people for very little. A physics professor tells you that the acceleration due to gravity on the earth is 9.8m/s^2. It's perfectly fine to challenge that claim, and test it and prove it to yourself. In most lectures the professor demonstrates the experiment himself, obviating the need for the question.

Of course, as the evidence improved with regards the atomic model, the other models were abandoned. That is the purpose of science, the false is discarded while the truth is retained.

[KingMerv00]

*These are not scientists, they are wooists - the meta-class of religionists. Their "science" is based upon faith, which only becomes stronger as more factual evidence is gathered and presented against it.

I don't think there is a simple dichotomy of wooist and scientist. For example, Einstein believed in the cosmological constant without evidence for years.

[sol invictus]

I don't think there is a simple dichotomy of wooist and scientist. For example, Einstein believed in the cosmological constant without evidence for years.

That's not really true - he did have evidence, which was that the universe was believed by astronomers at the time to be static (they were wrong, but of course he didn't know that). The only way to get a static universe in general relativity is to introduce a cosmological constant. So he was just fixing a parameter in his theory using data, which is a perfectly standard and correct thing to do in science.

But in general I agree with you. Science is done by humans, not robots, and humans tend to cling to their ideas even in the face of contrary evidence. What's interesting about that is that it's not at all clear whether such behavior is detrimental to science. On the contrary, sometimes clinging to what seem to be bad ideas based on the best evidence is a good idea, because occasionally the evidence ends up being wrong, or the idea finds another role (the cosmological constant is an excellent example of that). So in the long run it might be more fruitful to have a few outliers plugging away trying to save their pet ideas than to have everyone behave in what you might think is the most rational way.

Of course it's bad for most of those believers, because most of them are wrong and waste their careers - but it might be good for the field overall. It's a bit like an ant colony sending a few ants out on risky expeditions while the majority work on lower risk/gain things - most of the risk takers die or find nothing, but occasionally one uncovers something big.

[Tim Thompson]

I don't think there is a simple dichotomy of wooist and scientist. For example, Einstein believed in the cosmological constant without evidence for years.
If it's Einstein you want, a far better example would be his rejection of quantum physics for philosophical reasons. After rejecting quantum physics out of philosophical bias, he then went looking for evidence to support his preconception, in much the same way as a wooist might due. However ...

Science is done by humans, not robots, and humans tend to cling to their ideas even in the face of contrary evidence. What's interesting about that is that it's not at all clear whether such behavior is detrimental to science.
I agree. The real difference between wooists & real scientists is that wooists only think that they know what they are talking about, while real scientists really do know what they are talking about. Wooists are ignorant, and usually astonishingly so, while real scientists are extremely knowledgeable and insightful.

Einstein, in his effort to derail quantum physics, was able to think up ingenious objections which required the opposition to think deeply about it. Physics benefitted greatly, I think, as Einstein's objections forced the quantum physics community to come up with equally ingenious refutations, thus enhancing their insight & knowledge. Wooists, on the other hand, usually dream up objections to science which are simply stupid and easily dealt with. Dealing with their objections might help hone the arguing skills of an individual (language, communications & clarity of thought & expression for instance), but require no enhanced insight into standard physics.

So from the point of view of a professional, it can be quite exciting to deal with the offbeat bias of an Einstein type character, a real scientist. But it can be really boring, and even useless, to deal with the offbeat bias of an ignorant wooist.

It is to unblinkingly challenge them, and seek the truth of the matter.
Seek, but not find. The actual practice of science, in my experience, is to throw out the stuff that does not work, and thus satisfy oneself that somewhere in the bag of stuff left over, one will find the truth. But the bag seems always full, no matter how much we throw out.

You might also consult and old but related thread I started that has since gone off the pages: Fundamental Question on the Nature of Science (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139971), which attempted to clarify what is and what is not valid scientific reasoning.