How Does Science Work?

[Quantum]

Here's the problem I have with the peer review process.

It makes it seem like science is done by consensus. How is it not consensus? And I can just hear him saying that because it is done by consensus, that makes it no different than a religion.

 

[Umbran]

It's been a while since I was in school, but I remember reading about a couple scientists who claimed to have created cold fusion (which, to the layman, should probably be better called "not frickin' hot fusion"), but no other scientists could duplicate their results. The scientific community assumed that something was wrong in the original experiment which corrupted the results. Something needs to be proved again and again and again before it's accepted by the scientific community.

That would probably be Fleischmann–Pons cold fusion.

Science is a journey. Scientists do not say, "This is how things work," they say, "This is how we think things work today."

Well, even good scientists will occasionally use the shorthand. We aren't perfect.

 

[Merkuri]

It makes it seem like science is done by consensus. How is it not consensus? And I can just hear him saying that because it is done by consensus, that makes it no different than a religion.

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.

Saying something is done by consensus implies that it's just a show of hands. Like, "Who wants pepperoni on the pizza?"

Science is more like editing and re-editing and re-re-editing something until it's perfect (which will probably never happen, not in our lifetimes at least, but that's what we try to approach).

It's more like if you're building a house that has to be up to code and once it's built several people come in to check to see if that house is indeed up to code. Somebody could say that saying whether the house is up to code is a consensus, but each person inspecting the house has a list of things they're looking for. They're not just saying, "Yup, looks like a good house to me," they're comparing features of the house to their list of features that make up a good house.

Science is not a bunch of people saying, "Yup, looks like science to me." It's a bunch of people holding up a theory to a microscope, inspecting it every way they can think of, and determining whether it fits the qualifications of a good theory.

It's less consensus and more double-checking your work to make sure you had no typos.

 

[Merkuri]

I just realized that I listened to a few good Nova podcasts a few weeks ago that do a good job defining what science is. Give these a listen, and maybe have your friend listen to them, too. They're each less than 4 minutes long.

Defining Science: Only a Theory?
Defining Science: Science vs. Religion
Defining Science: Science Is Not Dogmatic
Defining Science: The Power of Science

(Podcast feed at: NOVA | PBS)

 

[Rackhir]

Sorry, thank you for letting me know. I'm just extremely frustrated with his attitudes with science and I've had it up to here trying to convince him he's wrong.

A good place for this sort of discussion and suggestions on how to proceed is JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation)

General Topics - JREF Forum

They are devoted specifically to helping people with these sorts of problems and have forums devoted to exactly these sorts of topics.

But as you've discovered, logical persuasion is rarely of much use in these sorts of debates and tempers tend to get hot quite quickly, which is why they are forbidden here.

 

[Orius]

Just remember that every scientific theory has its own close-minded unreasoning fanatics in just the same way that religious philosophies can have them.

So, to a certain degree, he does have a point.

People who take this view don't take into account that scientists can be blinded by pride, and bad theories often end up getting mocked. So yeah, scientists can get pretty snarky about a new theory to come along that contradicts an accepted theory; deep down they're afraid that future generations will laugh at them for defending bad science or something. This is not a problem with science, it's a problem with human nature.

 

[Umbran]

deep down they're afraid that future generations will laugh at them for defending bad science or something.

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!!!"

Scientists are humans, with attendant foibles. That's what makes peer review so valuable. Eventually, the foibles wash out, and you're left with the stuff that makes your cars, computers, cell phones and medicine work.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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.

Challenging the commonly accepted beliefes is critical for the progression of science. If we didn't have it, we would still believe that infectious diseases are caused by evil spirits, rather than microorganisms. Now, nobody has even managed to prove that evil spirits do not cause disease since you cannot prove a negative, but thanks to some people challenging the idea, we have now established a strong correllation between infectious disease and microorganisms.

 

[Morrus]

The odd thing I'm seeing here is your continued references to his "anger". Who is he angry at, and why? You can't be angry at "science", so presumably he's angry at "scientists"?

Any particular scientists? All scientists? What's the root of feeling anger towards them for creating hypotheses (as opposed to simply disagreeing with them?)

I'd suggest that this is an unwinnable debate you're engaged in; he's coming from a place of emotion, not logic. Your problem is that he wants to believe what he says, and he's not going to stop believing it until he stops wanting to believe it. This isn't likely to happen, and it's very unlikely that you can bring about that change; information won't counter it.

 

[Merkuri]

The odd thing I'm seeing here is your continued references to his "anger". Who is he angry at, and why?

I'm guessing the answer to that may break the "no politics, no religion" rule.

I hope I'm not breaking it here (trying not to be inflamatory), but it seems to me that some people get offended by science because they feel that science is trying to destroy religion.

This is not the case. There are some very religious scientists out there. Science and religion do not have to be on opposite sides of the spectrum.

A good counter argument to this that I've heard (probably in those podcasts I posted earlier) is that science is trying to answer the question of "what" and religion is trying to answer the question of "why". For example, science doesn't try to explain what triggered the big bang, or why Pi is 3.14.

You'd be surprised how many scientific theories can fit with the world's major religions if you try to open your mind a bit.

Science doesn't say that god doesn't exist. Science just prefers to take god out of the equation because it's too easy. Saying "god did it" as an answer to life's mysteries doesn't help us explain things. You can think of it as science trying to answer the qusetion of "how god did it," if you prefer.