I live in the southern U.S., and I feel there is a misconception going on down here that science is out to destroy everyone and everything. I am constantly hearing that science is awful, that it's never given us anything worthwhile (funny how a lot of this is bandied about right here on the Internet, isn't it?), and that it's constantly wrong but afraid to admit that it's wrong.
Let me just say this: if someone says that science is constantly claiming to be right, and that it's always terrified of admitting when it's wrong, then they clearly haven't been paying attention to the course of science, and obviously haven't ever read up on the scientific method. The goal of science is, and always has been, to find the truth while bracing oneself for it...whatever it may be, no matter how much it hurts to know.
Listed below are just some of the steps and benefits of the scientific method that I hope to illuminate for those still suffering from the grave misunderstanding that science is somehow wicked, and/or filled with pompous jerks seeking only to be right.
Fact Checking
Science is not a method for finding out how right we are, but for finding where we're wrong, and why we were wrong for so long. In fact, one could easily say that the best science is performed not when a researcher or theorist attempts to prove they're right, but when they first posit a theory and then spend the rest of their lives testing it, seeing if it's wrong, challenging it; exactly the way that the best blacksmith must test a blade, as well as his own skill, once the blade is forged, matching it against other blades that other smiths have made and claim are superior. If a scientist doesn't put his theories up against the rigorous scrutiny of other honed minds and their instruments, how can he expect his theory to hold up in application?
Like a boxer who has talked all his life about the "sweet science" of boxing, punching at a punching bag and shadow-boxing at air, he cannot know that it will work unless he's tested the skills and techniques he's been taught.
If a scientist, through his/her research, discovers that all of the bees in his studies beat their wings 60 times per second, his job is not to say, "All bees everywhere beat their wings sixty times per second." No, his job is to document that, so far, all that he and his researchers have found are bees that beat their wings that many times per second...and then to spend the rest of his professional career trying to find that one kind of bee that doesn't, and if he cannot, he must figure out why.
This is what makes a scientist, not trying to be right, but figuring out why they're wrong, and how they and others (scientist and non-scientist alike) have managed to get it so wrong for so long.
Peer Review
Every theory that a scientist or researcher comes up with must, must, must go through the rigorous stages of peer review. This is about what it sounds like--if you have a new theory, it must be reviewed by professional colleagues who have spent a lifetime studying in your specific field. This isn't just fact checking, this is "approach checking", you could say. Every one of your colleagues are reading the work, reviewing it thoroughly, and then asking you question after question to make sure your approach wasn't biased, that you didn't set out to prove something, only to search for the truth.
That's an important distinction. Scientists conduct research and experiments to see what will happen, not to try to make something happen that isn't genuine (if they even attempt this, they'd be found out rather quickly and be mocked out of academia). Therefore, an experiment is to gauge what happens, if, say, you accelerate an atom to certain speeds. Often for safety purposes, researchers and theorists put forth their predictions of what might happen, sure, so that that atom smasher can be properly built, sealed, used, etc.
This is where I feel many people get started on this misconception that scientists keep claiming to be right. They'll say, "First, these scientists say one thing, and then they find out they're wrong and they say another!" But, you see, they never claimed to be right with their first theory (I don't think I've ever heard of a scientist claiming to be absolutely correct right from the start), they simply had a goal in mind, their theory was stated so that they could clearly state to their peers what it was they were trying to explore.
In other words, instead of shooting your gun into a dark forest, it's best to tell your fellow hunters, "Hey, I think there are bears over there. I think I might've heard something. I'm going over there to hunt, so you boys watch out for me, so as no bears sneak up on me while my back is turned, and I'm gonna go see if I can't snag me a bear. Might be there are no bears over there, but I think there's something. Sounded bear-sized. Won't know 'til I look, will I?"
This leads to the experiment, which brings us to our next part...
Experiments
Other misconceptions about science, I feel, are the experiments themselves. I'm sure movies and TV are to blame for a great deal of this, because, many times, they use so much real-world nomenclature (jargon) to make the story seem plausible so that when things go wrong in the story because of some experiment, it seems more authentic. While this helps increase the tension by saying some failed experiment led to a government-created disease that wipes out humanity, this isn't how it works at all in 99% of research labs across the world.
First of all, there is no such thing as a failed experiment, not as long as it yielded some results. Even if the result is, "No, it's not possible to do that," then you have had a successful experiment: you now know a little bit more about what's possible and what's not.
As Stephen Hawking once wrote, "Any time you've ever heard a movie or TV show talk about something resulting from a failed experiment, the script is merely suffering from a bad script writer."
Experiments are like sparring in martial arts--you have to test what you've learned in application--and the results of almost all of these experiments go through some type of peer review. And, as stated above, peer review is a harsh method of self-regulation, and a theory must pass through harsh scrutiny if it is even to be considered for publication.
So, for future reference, if something is even being published in an authentic journal of science, one should know that it has passed over a lot of mountains, valleys, and volcanoes just to be there on the page of a major scientific journal. In other words, the people thinking about publishing it are a great deal more hesitant to publish some research that was shoddily done than, say, an editor who's wondering which naked pictures of the Royal Family he ought to run with on page one. Scientists want to know what is true, not what some desperate "mad scientist" wishes was true.
After all, you can't make the future of technology, engineering, and medicine on wishes.
Benefits...and Backlash
If I were to sit here and list all the benefits of science, this article would go on for eternity. So, instead of listing all the ways that medical science has lengthened our lives (more than doubled from 120 years ago) and how it has helped fill our lives with entertainment every waking minute if you so choose (iPhones and PS3's, anyone?), let me just say this. I would not be here writing this if not for science.
That's right, when I was two years old, I was deathly sick with spinal meningitis. If I had been born just 15 years prior, there would've been no hope for me and I would be dead. No one would have ever heard of Chad Huskins, none of my books would have been written, and none of these ideas would have been put to print.
Here in the Deep South, people are always assuming that religion is under constant attack by science. Recently, they've gotten caught up in debates over creationism versus evolution, and refuse to come to a compromise where they can say that evolution does not exclude their god of choice. Instead, they have attempted to eradicate it, and in ways that are sometimes frighteningly similar to how people were once called witches without looking at the evidence that said otherwise.
I've read numerous books and articles on evolution and creationism (I was raised Baptist), but I don't have one Christian or Muslim friend that owns even a single book on evolution, or even just a basic science book, and yet they all tell me what's inside these evil, disgusting books.
For instance, religious friends of mine have said many times, "If Darwin says we all came from chimpanzees, then why are there still chimpanzees?" When I tell them that Darwin never said that, and that what he actually said (and it's in his book On the Origin of Species) was that modern humans and chimpanzees both evolved from a common ancestor, and that ancestor is no more, they tell me that I'm wrong. I ask them if they've even read Darwin, and they say, quite proudly, "No, and I never will."
I want to ask them how they'll ever know what the other side in a debate is saying if they don't read what the other side is saying, but they won't hear of it.
I worry about the ignorance that threatens to overtake the southern U.S., as well as the recent respect that ignorance has garnered. It reminds me of being in school, when the ignorant and dumb kids were the popular ones, and thought it was cool to stay ignorant, while mocking the smart kids.
I don't want to harp on this point too long, but this recent and powerful backlash against science, the very discipline that brought us the computers we're all using, the Internet we communicate with, and the medical advances we all take advantage of, is tremendously upsetting.
Personally, I know of numerous doctors, scientists, and researchers, even a couple that work in major labs and for the CDC, and I can tell you that not one of them wants to see religion stamped out, and none of them wishes to destroy the world. They give it their all every day as they eagerly search for the truth of a matter, work out possible cures, and push for greater understanding.
I'm not saying that science has all the answers. All I'm saying is that it's trying.
Follow me on Facebook and Twitter: Twitter account ChadHuskinsAuthor
Visit my website: www.forestofideas.com
No comments:
Post a Comment