The Debating Society
Hobbies & Interests
A place where ModDB members can debate civilly, and learn from each other's views.
The problem with science
Post a comment
Description
So I recently voiced my opinions against the current version of science and today I see this in my subs list. He makes a lot of good points.
Before you claim he doesn't know what he's talking about know that he has videos making graphene which is why I found him on youtube.
In a lab report you always have sources of error, as well as error calculations on your data. For most instruments its half of the smallest unit you can measure with the tool. On a ruler this would be 0.5 mm since the smallest unit on a ruler is 1 mm. This factors into your conclusion, same with the sources of error you encountered in the lab (human error, measurement error etc). So him suggesting that you can't be sure of what you see, well yes i can't be 100% sure, but that's what the error calculations are for. Him suggesting that scientists just measure things and just state that it is absolutely correct is not true, thats not the way it's done by proper scientists.
His point is that science is run by people, which is a fairly useless thing to say just because of that fact that i can make that point about anything else. He is right that some people are arrogant, and if they are in charge of something then it will turn out bad. but again this isn't a argument against science. My main issue here is not so much that he is incorrect (since he very well might be, As I don't personally know any people in the cutting edge of science i cant say either way), but just that this issue exists in every institution run by man, eliminating it is difficult.
His final thought i found very interesting, that anyone who is curious about the world around them is a scientist/investigator, and that this is more important that science. Now, i half agree with him here, as someone who has been burned for this, yeah i agree the idea you're getting accross is infintely more important than the terminology you use. But at the same time, the terminology (for the most part) is there for a reason, in order to distinguish one thing from another. If you were writing up a lab report for example, you're gonna want to be specific in the procedure otherwise your report is useless to anyone who wishes to reproduce your findings (which is important for verification reasons). However, he never gives any examples as to what he's talking about so I can't really know for sure (he says laws and rules which you can't question, but this can mean anything, such as the proper way to name bacteria all the way up to the scientific method itself).
Finally, him saying Science is like a belief system like religion with respect to the fact its run by people. Does this mean anything run by people which involves them believing in something is similar to religion (with respect to the fact that theyre both run by people)? As i said before it's not much of a point to make as Science and religion are different entities. Although they share the similarities of both run by people and both explain the unknown, i cannot then claim that they are then both the same effective belief system as im ignoring all the differences (which is ironic given that his first point was talking against how scientists supposedly ignore facts).
I guess he's getting at the fact that when a new discovery I made and it contradicts old beliefs the beliefs aren't reevaluated in light of the old evidence agian and the new evidence but that the belief is simply modified instead of getting rewritten from scratch. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I felt he was getting at when he mentioned what happens to those that say question big scientific beliefs like lets say evolution or the Big Bang.
Those who question evolution or the Big gang are welcome to try and prove it wrong. However, they must use FACTS and scientific data in order to back it up.
In the field of science, the Aim is often to prove both old AND new ideas wrong in order to find truth or knowledge.