Great Quote on Science

The Coffee Shop
1

This is from a Wall Street Journal column on global warming but it does point out something interesting about the fact that some areas of science have become political and that may actually affect the qualtiy of th science. I’m not talking about rank speculation (ie evoluiton vs religion) but the fact is that when scientists are not free to follow the data and question orthodoxy, science suffers.

“Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere.”

If the CERN scientists has instead found data that suggested a big crack in current evolutionary theory or questioned global warming, would the resulting reaction have been different? Given the current climate would they have even chosen that line of inquiry?

2

Without knowing the details of this report, I see the following misunderstanding being made:

Scientists thought A, but now they are thinking that A is wrong and maybe its B.

Well if that’s the case, lets make A = “evolution” or “AGW” and lets make B = “creation” or “random uncontrolable natural cycles.”

It doesn’t work that way in science. B had to be supported by substantial evidence and based in a solid foundation of the scientific process. B can’t just be anything one wants to believe.

3

Very interesting…lets see a lot of science is based on theory (which many LR posters place their “faith” in and call fact)…so if the speed of light is not the fastest speed that anything can travel, what else could possible be off?

4

This is from a Wall Street Journal column on global warming but it does point out something interesting about the fact that some areas of science have become political and that may actually affect the qualtiy of th science. I’m not talking about rank speculation (ie evoluiton vs religion) but the fact is that when scientists are not free to follow the data and question orthodoxy, science suffers.

“Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere.”

If the CERN scientists has instead found data that suggested a big crack in current evolutionary theory or questioned global warming, would the resulting reaction have been different? Given the current climate would they have even chosen that line of inquiry?

Finding evidence of the falsity of evolution or AGW would be far, far bigger on one’s CV than any finding that corroborates those two (“yawn, nothing new here”).

I seriously doubt that researchers in those two fields are not desperately looking for falsifying data, both for the reason above and for personal reasons (we all would like it not to be happening).

When reputable researchers (and the folks at CERN certainly fall in that category) announce surprising findings, other researchers take notice. I’d also point out that the CERN research was not trying to disprove Einstein’s theory; their research just happened to have unexpected observations.

5

And this unexpected observation makes you yawn? I find it fascinating…what if it true? Forget about whether you believe in evolution or creationism or some combo of the two…our science is limited because of “what we know”, when we learn something new it opens up new possibilities, don’t you think?

6

So what you are saying is that because physicists have found a surprising result that goes against our current understanding, that is a few weeks old, and that they are happily double checking the surprising result to make sure that it is correct.

That somehow there is a problem with sticking to a 40 year old idea that as of yet has no surprising result suggesting it is not true?

What the wall street journal is thinking is that there are compelling lines of evidence that global warming is not actually happening, and that those lines of evidence are being ignored, unlike the physics community.

However I do not believe either of those points are correct.

As one example: Anthony Watts put together a team of volunteers to catalog suspiciously located weather stations that might be skewing global surface temperature readings. They found a lot of them!

The climate science community did not ignore that, they did in fact double check. Re running temperature trends with and without the stations in that dataset.

lets discuss. In the field of climate science, what is the analog to the neutrino result? What interesting evidence is there that the earth is not warming, that is being ignored by climate science?

This is from a Wall Street Journal column on global warming but it does point out something interesting about the fact that some areas of science have become political and that may actually affect the qualtiy of th science. I’m not talking about rank speculation (ie evoluiton vs religion) but the fact is that when scientists are not free to follow the data and question orthodoxy, science suffers.

“Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere.”

If the CERN scientists has instead found data that suggested a big crack in current evolutionary theory or questioned global warming, would the resulting reaction have been different? Given the current climate would they have even chosen that line of inquiry?

7

And this unexpected observation makes you yawn? I find it fascinating…what if it true? Forget about whether you believe in evolution or creationism or some combo of the two…our science is limited because of “what we know”, when we learn something new it opens up new possibilities, don’t you think?

You misread what I wrote. That is the reaction after yet another finding supporting evolution or AGW. They are expected observations. It is exactly the unexpected ones that capture attention, and deservedly so. That’s why the whole idea that people are surpressing anti-AGW findings is laughable on its face.

8

Finding evidence of the falsity of evolution or AGW would be far, far bigger on one’s CV than any finding that corroborates those two (“yawn, nothing new here”).

Yet, there is some evidence that scientists in the fields of evolution and GW who do not “toe the line” of othodoxy suffer profesionally.

I am not by any means trying to make a faith/god based argument. I am just interested in the fact that science and specifically what is pursued scientificially and how it is pursued scientifically can and is influenced by non scientific factors such as politics, prejudices, preconceived notions and all the other human failings we all suffer from. Scientists are human and that affects science.
Its a fairly obvious point (at least it should be) but it is interesting to see people’s reactions to it.
Its more a long the lines of taking a look at science as a culture rather than specifically as an endeavour totally separate from the fact it is carried out on the ground by humans.

9

Very interesting…lets see a lot of science is based on theory (which many LR posters place their “faith” in and call fact)…so if the speed of light is not the fastest speed that anything can travel, what else could possible be off?

Remember that the word theory is misleading - “all of humanity’s best plausible explanation” just doesn’t flow off the tongue as easily.

There is a big difference between a neutrino (which has a near-zero mass and can quite literally pass through matter unaffected) traveling slightly faster than the speed of light and anything else traveling faster than the speed of light. If this finding is validated, only small amounts of relativity would have to be reworked. The vast majority of the theory has already been proven. That’s the beauty of science - rework, refine, until it’s as close as possible to the reality.

10

Yet, there is some evidence that scientists in the fields of evolution and GW who do not “toe the line” of othodoxy suffer profesionally.

To conclude that, you would have to show more that they suffered professionally while making logical arguments that were against the orthodoxy. If someone says something stupid, that HAPPENS to be against the orthodoxy, and suffers professionally for it, there is no problem.

I’m not aware of any biologist or climate scientist showing some sound evidence or logic against the orthodoxy and suffering for it, do you have an example?

11

Not related to global warming but I just saw this lede about this years’ Nobel winner in chemistry:

"When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new crystalline chemical structure that seemed to violate the laws of nature, colleagues mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group.
After years in the scientific wilderness, though, he was proved right. And on Wednesday, he received the ultimate vindication: the Nobel Prize in chemistry.
The lesson?
“A good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks,” Shechtman said. http://news.yahoo.com/vindicated-ridiculed-israeli-scientist-wins-nobel-183256852.html

12

well, my doctoral research developed some findings that were politically sensitive, and already i’ve definitely encountered some resistance. it’s tough to get papers into some conferences, for sure. on the other hand, i’ve also had lots of encouragement and funding - a discovery that upends our taken-for-granteds is the very coolest kind.

i will also say: the peer review stuff works. it’s crazy. i agree that peer review in particular and the publishing scene generally is getting diluted and screwed up, but it’s just amazing. just a couple of weeks ago i had an email from halfway across the world, asking about an apparent typo halfway through the bibliography of a paper i put out like 2 years ago. people really are out there keeping us honest.

lastly, i’d say that the problem with this specific analogy is that the speed of light is a single number. it goes x. if we find something that goes x+1, which we previously thought impossible, we’ll have to revise our assumptions. but there isn’t a single-digit silver bullet for evolution or global warming - if you wanted to take down the theory of evolution - for instance - i can’t imagine much (short of finding adam and eve’s perfectly preserved bodies) that would do it in a single shot. you’d have to slowly amass great piles of complimentary evidence and then weave it into a coherent whole. that’s a project for a lifetime.

-mike