How Does Science Work?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Most scientists aren't like that.

Judging all scientists by that handful is no different than judging all Muslims by Al Qaeda.

The media plays a role here. They seek out extreme opinions and give them a mouthpiece. Or they take a very complicated subject and reduce it to a hyper-simple bullet point. You do that more than once, and you're going to see them contradict each other. And since "scientists" are conceived of as some sort of monolithic whole, contradictions become a reason not to trust scientists. Of course, even good scientists are often phenomenally bad at talking to the media, so there's some blame to be shared.

If nothing else, the scientific community needs to learn to invest in P.R. We're woefully bad at it, overall.

 

[freyar]

Huh, haven't had much to say, since I think a lot of the replys are on target. But here's an amusing comic about the questionable relationship between science and the media. Enjoy.

 

[Umbran]

I can not, as a scientist, agree with that statement at all.

Well, I, as a scientist, do agree with it.

See? Not all scientists agree on everything, including science!

The process of evolution can be (and is) tested in many ways. Furthermore, directed evolution is a scientific method in which evolution is harnessed to create creatures (usually bacteria, quickest lifecycle) more suited for an environment.

To my knowledge, through all our breeding and genetics work (directed evolution or otherwise), mankind has not yet created a new species of multicellular organism, nor have we witnessed it happening in nature. All the plants, cows, dogs, cats, and so on that we've created are still genetically compatible with their root stocks.

There are indirect supports - one can do directed evolution on things with really fast generation times, and then generalize - but that doesn't actually test if the multi-cellular critters do it in nature. You instead have to build a case that it happens from the fossil record.

Nor can we, say, test if dinosaurs were warm blooded by growing one and observing its body temperature relative to the ambient temperature around it. We can only look at the evidence we have (mostly fossilized bones) and find traits similar to those of current warm-blooded creatures, but dissimilar to cold-blooded ones - and maybe stack up enough to make the case.

Geology (and by this I presume you mean geological phenomena) can be tested in numerous ways - indirectly through modeling, directly through many different techniques.

You mention your self that it is indirect - that means you cannot actually set up the situation and watch the results. That's the problem.

A particle physicist can develop a hypothesis and a model, and then slam particles against each other and see if what comes out is consistent with the model. The geologist cannot come up with a hypothesis and a model, and then watch a planet go through events on geologic timescales to see if the behavior is consistent with the model. The geologist must look for a chain of indirect evidence, and build the case until it is extremely convincing.

Historical science done in this matter works - it some ways it takes a lot more effort to do, and sometimes the practitioners stay stuck until evidence falls into their laps. But often they don't get to decide what evidence they get to use.

 

[Orius]

Having seen this in action a couple of times... no, it isn't usually "future generations". It is more commonly outright immediate ego and pride. I mean, let's face it, very few people on the planet like to be told, "Your WRONG!!!"

There's that too. But we do agree on the root cause: pride. Scientists can be very contentious because of pride, and because they don't want to look foolish or wrong.

I'm very confused how someone could think science should be right the first time. If it were, it wouldn't be science, it would just be facts.

It's probably because of the whole religion vs. science thing apparently going on. Science by its very nature is disputational. But for some religions, there's a revealed truth, and questioning said truth is at best heretical. I think people who adherents of such religions simply don't understand that science is meant to be constantly re-examined.

At least here in the States, there's a very strong anti-expert bias. The general opinion seems to be that scientists are bad people because they think they're smarter than you or that their opinions matter more.

We have a cultural sickness that insists all opinions are equal. Training is irrelevant. Experience is irrelevant. Unless it's your training and experience. That, of course, remains paramount and anyone questioning it is ignorant or worse.

Yes, in contemporary American culture, there is the ideal that everone is equal means all their opinions are equally valid, regardless of how well informed one is. Isn't this a big dispute over on Wikipedia, where Joe Crackpot thinks he's just as well informed as an expert in just about any field? Nor does it help that some of the people who are experts or scholars can come off as arrogant and condescening; people naturally find that insulting. It's not that simple either though, because a lot of contemporary (and quite off-topic) religion and politics play their part as well, and tend to exacerbate the problems.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The difference is that the scientific community has standards that they enforce. When a scientist publishes a paper and other scientists read it, they don't just go, "That sounds good, I like it! I'll go with it." They try to repeat the experiment or they research their own data and see if it fits with the theory. Or they even create their own experiment to prove the same hypothesis.

Interestingly (and perhaps sadly) even some of those principles are starting to fail. Whether because of the loony UK libel laws (e.g. the case where a doctor says 'drug xyz doesn't work on children and is harmful' and drug manufacturers have taken him personally to court over the statement) or because of problems in the scientific journals - some of the climate change science problems (again in the UK) have allegedly arisen because a journal had a clique which decided what was worth peer-reviewing.

Personally, I rather like the way that science at its best combines a degree of 'evolution by gradual refining of theories' punctuated by 'revolutions' when something turns 'common knowledge' on its head. Like with Plate Tectonics which was strongly resisted right up until the point when it was accepted. The 'revolutions' are the times when there can be most resistance from the established scientists who have spent their lives refining existing theories.

Science is cool!

Cheers

 

[Umbran]

There's that too. But we do agree on the root cause: pride. Scientists can be very contentious because of pride, and because they don't want to look foolish or wrong.

Yes. Rather like some posters on EN World. Humans can be contentious because of pride. It isn't a scientist thing, it is a people thing.

... some of the climate change science problems (again in the UK) have allegedly arisen because a journal had a clique which decided what was worth peer-reviewing.

I'm not familiar with whatever particular case or cases you're talking about. But, a journal is supposed to have an editorial review board and/or process. It is not generally possible for a quality journal to print everything that's submitted to them, so they must pick and choose.

Now, it is possible that some decisions were being made by people who weren't supposed to be part of the process, or that they were using really crappy criteria. But the fact that someone was making decisions about publication isn't at all strange.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

But the fact that someone was making decisions about publication isn't at all strange.

Of course not. But every time there's a human being making a decision, there's a possible problem. Usually in academics, the stakes are pretty darn low, but that's less the case nowadays.

In some fields of biology, there have been several suspected cases where conflict of interest may have suppressed work. As an editor or board member for a major journal, someone becomes a gatekeeper of information. What happens when something comes across your desk that scoops a project one of your students or colleagues is working on.... a project that generates tens of thousands of dollars for your lab/department/university?

There are dozens of apocryphal tales of that kind of thing, most of them generated by pure sour grapes. But some of them are true.

Another piece of evidence that scientists are people too. Our livelihoods are frequently tied directly to bringing in grant money. Sometimes millions of dollars and/or the jobs of your colleagues are at stake in who publishes first.

Talk about broken incentive systems...

 

[Umbran]

Usually in academics, the stakes are pretty darn low, but that's less the case nowadays.

.....

Another piece of evidence that scientists are people too. Our livelihoods are frequently tied directly to bringing in grant money. Sometimes millions of dollars and/or the jobs of your colleagues are at stake in who publishes first.

Talk about broken incentive systems...

Not so much broken as bent, but yeah.

Mind you, I'm not so sure that millions of dollars and the jobs of your colleagues is "low stakes".

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

That change is what I was trying to communicate (I failed, clearly).

The system was built for a low stakes game. Certain areas of biological science, engineering, and some others, have changed. Now millions of dollars are at stake in who publishes what and where.

The incentives have changed, but the system remains largely the same.

 

[Marius Delphus]

To the OP: Buy or borrow a copy of Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World. (At Amazon.com: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269975566&sr=8-1"]buy it here[/ame].)

Read it cover to cover. Sagan frequently discusses "how science works" with regard to various pseudoscience topics like aliens, psychic powers, and more.