The word science, simply means knowledge. These days the word is used to mean a systematic and organized method of acquiring knowledge.
The thing is, though, that there’s a whole lot of so-called junk-science out there. There is, however, an easy way to tell if what you’re reading about is good science (that is science that is properly performed) or junk-science.
Good science starts with an idea, based on what is known and observed. Why is such a thing this way or that way? Why does this happen? Why does it not happen under some circumstances when it clearly should be happening?
So, an idea is formed that explains what is known and observed. But that’s just the start. There are a number of other details and terminologies, but the next steps are crucial to good science.
The people with the idea try to prove it wrong. If it’s wrong, then everyone goes back to working on another idea that might explain what is happening. Everything gets written down carefully, so that everyone else can double-check that no mistakes were made during the tests.
Over in junk-science land, it also starts with an idea. The people with the idea then attempt to prove it right. They may also fail to write down their test records carefully and completely.
Why is attempting to prove a theory right, wrong; and why is attempting to prove it wrong, right?
Let’s borrow from the problem of induction for a moment, specifically black swans.
At one point, it was maintained that a black swan was an impossibility. Not that there weren’t any, but that there could not be any. All swans were clearly white. As it turns out, there are some substantial populations of black swans, but the people who were talking about swans just weren’t aware of them.
So, assuming your idea is that all swans are white, junk-science is not going to go looking for black ones. You’re going to check all your available swans, find that they’re all white and consider yourself right. If someone mentions that they’ve heard of black swans, well, that’s a rumor. An anomaly. It goes against all of your data, so it’s probably wrong, right?
Wrong.
Good science hears about a black swan, and tries to find them. Good science starts with the same idea: All swans are white. Then good science ignores the white swans and starts looking for swans that are not white. Black swans, grey swans, yellow swans, green swans.
If a swan is found that isn’t white, then careful checking is in order. Is it a swan? Are there more non-white swans?
Clearly the idea itself is flawed, and a new idea about swans is in order. And that’s okay! If you don’t like being wrong, don’t get into science. Good scientists are, in the main, excited to be wrong. It means they’ve found something that is more interesting than it appeared to be at first.
Good science takes the time to look further than its own window and its own back-yard. Good science tries to prove itself wrong, because only by finding your own errors can you get closer to the truth.
| The word science, simply means knowledge. These days the word is used to mean a systematic and organized method of acquiring knowledge.
The thing is, though, that there’s a whole lot of so-called junk-science out there. There is, however, an easy way to tell if what you’re reading about is good science (that is science that is properly performed) or junk-science.
Good science starts with an idea, based on what is known and observed. Why is such a thing this way or that way? Why does this happen? Why does it not happen under some circumstances when it clearly should be happening?
So, an idea is formed that explains what is known and observed. But that’s just the start. There are a number of other details and terminologies, but the next steps are crucial to good science.
The people with the idea try to prove it wrong. If it’s wrong, then everyone goes back to working on another idea that might explain what is happening. Everything gets written down carefully, so that everyone else can double-check that no mistakes were made during the tests.
Over in junk-science land, it also starts with an idea. The people with the idea then attempt to prove it right. They may also fail to write down their test records carefully and completely.
Why is attempting to prove a theory right, wrong; and why is attempting to prove it wrong, right?
Let’s borrow from the problem of induction for a moment, specifically black swans.
At one point, it was maintained that a black swan was an impossibility. Not that there weren’t any, but that there could not be any. All swans were clearly white. As it turns out, there are some substantial populations of black swans, but the people who were talking about swans just weren’t aware of them.
So, assuming your idea is that all swans are white, junk-science is not going to go looking for black ones. You’re going to check all your available swans, find that they’re all white and consider yourself right. If someone mentions that they’ve heard of black swans, well, that’s a rumor. An anomaly. It goes against all of your data, so it’s probably wrong, right?
Wrong.
Good science hears about a black swan, and tries to find them. Good science starts with the same idea: All swans are white. Then good science ignores the white swans and starts looking for swans that are not white. Black swans, grey swans, yellow swans, green swans.
If a swan is found that isn’t white, then careful checking is in order. Is it a swan? Are there more non-white swans?
Clearly the idea itself is flawed, and a new idea about swans is in order. And that’s okay! If you don’t like being wrong, don’t get into science. Good scientists are, in the main, excited to be wrong. It means they’ve found something that is more interesting than it appeared to be at first.
Good science takes the time to look further than its own window and its own back-yard. Good science tries to prove itself wrong, because only by finding your own errors can you get closer to the truth. | |  | |
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, 23rd June, 2009.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Possibly related posts
Searching versus ranking, A good process, Good women and men of conscience, As good as dead, Good, better, best
Good explanation, What brought this up?
Nothing specific. I’m dealing with capped internet plans at the moment, and while I’m sitting here barely able to web-browse or check my email, I’m working through my slush-pile a little.
Send this one to the “Global Warming” crowd.
Especially since the last year is the coldest in the last decade.
LOL
There is a lot of junk science out there. The social engineers like to use it a lot.
But how hot was the last decade compared to the decades before that Ari?
With climate change, real or not, you have to look at long term numbers, to much variation can happen from year to year to consider a colder year to mean that nothing is going on.
FYI, the controversy isn’t about if it is getting warmer, there are now enough indicators that it is. The debate is if it is a natural occurrence or man made. And if we can or should do something about it.
@Frans
Yes. And when I was in High School, the ‘great fear” was that the new ice-age was coming.
Doesn’t matter. We’ll all be dead by the time anything of any real significance happens. And up to that point, all living life on the planet will adapt.
That’s the problem with life: it;s a hereditary fatal disease that has no cure.
Being on the Pacific coast of Aussieland, I get to discount not just year-to-year temperature and climate figures, but decade-to-decade. El Nino/La Nina means that this decade can have a wildly different climate from the last.
Don’t look at short-term patterns when trying to judge climate. Short term patterns can be caused by all sorts of things.
For instance, the current that gives western Europe its relatively warm weather for the latitude may end up shutting down completely if the oceans warm up. Paradoxically, this would mean global warming would give western Europe a much, much colder climate.
Similarly, if global warming melts polar ice caps, all that frigid water would temporarily cool the oceans it melts into, thus cooling land masses next to those currents. Another case of global warming creating cold weather – in this case, temporarily.
So ‘this year was bloody cold where I am’ is not evidence that global warming is wrong – not until you’ve studied and accounted for as many variables as possible.
Try to prove wrong the hypothesis that ‘this year was bloody cold where I am therefore global warming is wrong’. If you can’t, then the hypothesis may (or may not) be correct!
They said they killer bees were coming for us (from Mexico as I recall) back in the 70s. I think they get rolled by the American ones.
Killer bees? I’m still on the lookout for kudzu, which is likely to creep up the side of my building, into my bedroom, and strangle me in my sleep!
Adric, You keep saying saying that something was said by ‘they’. You are just proving you fell for stupid fear based stories in the mass media. Fear should never be your council and lead your actions and opinions.
I understand you are burned in the past, but it is unwise to dismiss everything. I do applaud your critical mind and would encourage you to dig deeper and find out what is really going on. And maybe prove us all wrong.
@Seschat, Glad to see some one else who is aware of the complexities of the worlds weather systems. I’m from Holland, and many people short of welcome the hotter weather. They are not realising that Spain is slowly turning in a desert and that as you said, It might actually get colder in Europe on the long run.
We are blessed to live in Interesting times.