Every once in a while I hear the word "science" bandied about, especially today because of this wonderful piece about child vaccinations.
Out of the woodwork comes people who feel we can't rely on "science" because "science" always changes. And because "science" sometimes changes "science" is an unreliable source of information, and "science" is just an "elitist" whatchamacallit pile of whatsit.
Sceince, science, science.
Science.
That's a funny word if you say it a bunch of times. SCIENCE. SCIIIIEEENCE. Okay. Putting the peyote down...on with the diary.
This particular quote by a person who shall remain nameless encapsulates the line of reasoning that causes me concern...
All this elitisim being assign to SCIENCE...is very dangerous. Remember that science is always changing, and science does not inherently set out to prove anything.
First I'd like to make clear that Science doesn't really change. SCIENCE isn't a conclusion or a thing, in the strictest sense.
SCIENCE is a METHOD. It's a process, and it looks like this:
CORRECTION: Instead of "Hypothesis is True" or "Hypothesis is False" it should read "Hypothesis works" or "Hypothesis doesn't work" Thanks to all who made that correction.
And to put the nail in the coffin for good practice:
- Your work has to be reviewed by your peers.
- Your work needs to be replicated by an independant body.
- The hypothesis should be revisited whenever new knowledge is acquired.
(Thanks to KS Rose et al. for those three additions)
This process has served us very well for quite some time. In fact, I'd say a lot of us owe our lives to the very existence of this process. One of my absolute favorite scientists continues to be Louis Pasteur whose experimentation advanced the idea that "germs" cause illness, which he took a step further to the observation and proof that "germs" could be "washed off" with "soap" to reduce illness. (thanks to Pico for pointing out Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis established the importance of hand washing a generation prior to Pasteur, prior to germ theory).
The scientific method works with what it knows. Works with what it can observe. So it shouldn't be surprising that when a new body of knowledge or new ability to observe things is discovered, there is a huge re-adjustment of hypothesies and lines of thought. That's because SCIENCE is simply a method for for working with what's known to answer a question or prove a hypothesis.
There is such thing as a bad application of the scientific method, for example if your experiment or question is too broad and not well controlled: "I drop a feather and a hammer and the hammer falls faster. I confirm my belief that heavy things fall faster than light things."
There is also such a thing as drawing random conclusions from test results: "I let go of the ball. The ball falls 100% of the time. Therefore gremlins have infested the ball."
There are also unscrupulous types who will pick and choose scientific studies to bolster their own financial agenda. But this shouldn't cast doubt on the scientific method.
If you read scientific experiments, the conclusions are often very cagey and boring without huge extrapolations of what the data could mean. It's just the facts: "we have observed that this thing happens." The excitement doesn't come into play until a journalist for Scientific American comes along and draws his or her own wild conclusions to make a good story..."And that's how we're going to make worm holes to the Eden planet Andromeda 6. The end." Or until an entrepreneur takes the findings and applies them to a new product.
Science doesn't "change," it's the conclusions people apply it to.
It's the unrelated or half baked conclusions that can cause trouble.
Is Science the best and only way of learning about the world? No. It's A WAY of learning about the world and it happens to have been unbelievably, wildly useful; getting us to the moon, healing the sick, improving sustainable farming methods (Thank you George Washington Carver and your delicious peanut butter (which I should point out he did not invent in his successful endevour to save southern agriculture)). It gives us information we can act on as our conscience or morality dictates.
But the notion that Science is an inherently unreliable and unstable source is insane, ignorant, and dangerous. When you start to question the scientific method, you start to question a method of thought that relies strictly on observation and repetition, and you open the door to superstition and rumor.
DISCLAIMER: Now...I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the Intertoobz. If a scientist wants to call total bullshit on my explanation, please do so and I'll revise...maybe.
GRAMMAR NOTE: Alright, I'm getting a lot of Data/Datum "data isn't singular" grammar geeks throwing down the gauntlet.
Data...plural BUT singular or plural in construction. CHECK IT
http://www.merriam-webster.com/...
Bust out the Oxford English Dictionary and I'll say I only speak Standard American English.