How reliable are the findings of science?

[tomspug]

Not having a lot of experience in the scientific world, it seems that scientific "findings" and "conclusions" tend to be in constant flux. For example, the Atacama desert is deemed inhospitable for life and is believed to have been that way for approximately 23 million years (a number determined by the findings of a few scientists) only to find later that there is evidence in the desert of hunter/gatherer civilizations. Now the number is 120,000 years of dryness (according to Wikipedia).

But this kind of process is inevitable, right? It's just the way science is. You look at what you know, you draw conclusions, and you assume that those conclusions are right until they are conclusively proven wrong... like the medicinal removal of "bad blood".

But that's where the problem is. The criteria for drawing a conclusion is very little, but the criteria for DISPROVING a previous conclusion is incredibly high. Shouldn't we then be constantly taking the "findings" of science with a grain of salt? Who is to say that what is "popular" science now will be popular later (the point at which your career no longer benefits from the former? I'm not implying that scientists intentionally draw incorrect conclusions for their own benefit... but I kind of am.

I think that we have, to a fault, a need as a race to explain EVERYTHING. With this drive, we see the inability to draw a conclusion as a kind of failure. You are only successful if you establish a "truth". But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

 

[Willamena]

Depends on what you are "relying" on science to give you. If you're relying on it to give you the constant flux, then power to you.

If your "grain of salt" tastes good, enjoy it for all its worth.

 

[lunamoth]

You are only successful if you establish a "truth".

Science is exceptionally good at finding data, facts, and useful, testable theories about how our world works that enable us to make predictions about material outcomes. It is not about finding Truth. It is about finding what is useful.

You should, and scientists do, take their findings with a grain of salt. That's the whole underlying approach of science. I understand how it can be easy to be confused about this because the findings of science have been Sooooooooo incredibly useful and allow us to do things like treat cancer and land on the moon. But, all scientific theory is and should be constantly tested against results. The exciting stuff happens when you find the execption to the rule that opens up a whole new realm of investigation.

 

[Willamena]

But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

What's wrong with that is that generally if there's not enough data to support it, they don't think it. In other words, they base their conclusions on the data there is, not the data there isn't.

 

[tomspug]

Lunamoth, I think that that is an idealistic view of science, as principle, not as fact. Scientists are human too, and they can be selfish and make mistakes. And science is often used as a tool by people in power.

The problem is not the scientific process, but WHAT we choose to research and TO WHAT END it concludes...

 

[lunamoth]

What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

I have to laugh. I have heard this statement so many times from scientists, and I bet PW has too. If you don't hear it it's because scientists (try) to be very very careful about the process called "peer reivew." You can't get those things you think are plausible published unless they've been verified and vetted by your strongest competitors in the field. Because of the nature of this process, the bigger the potential of a new idea, the more it is tested before it is made public.

That is also why scientists who release their ideas and data too early, such as to magazine and such, in order to gain the spotlight can end up in ruins if they are wrong.

 

[lunamoth]

Lunamoth, I think that that is an idealistic view of science, as principle, not as fact. Scientists are human too, and they can be selfish and make mistakes. And science is often used as a tool by people in power.

The problem is not the scientific process, but WHAT we choose to research and TO WHAT END it concludes...

Yes, I presented the idealist view and there are politics and greed in science as in any endeavor. But, having spent a good portion of my career working in science I also know that science only works if it follows that basic strategy. You really can't cheat for long and maintain your credibility.

Seriously, even in industry where probably the most advanced progress is made, because of the money, it simply can't work if scientists fudge their results intentionally. If you intentionally or out of lack of ability put forth weak and outright incorrect ideas these will be vetted...if they are of any importance.

There are tons of things that qualify as pseudoscience, and they are carried out by the whole gamut from outright con artists and charletans (penis enlargement products anyone?) to scientists who really are being motivated by honest but incorrect premises (Linus Pauling and Vitamin C). I don't even know where to put ID on that scale because there are no testable hypotheses coming out of ID, nor are any possible (the whole idea of the supernatural is that it defies scientific inquirey). Memes are an equivalent form of pseudoscience coming from the opposite side.

You can make a wrong conclusion but it won't make headway unless there is strong political force behind it. And yes, this is clearly possible. That's why ID is something worth fighting against IMO. It is a perfect example of something with no scientific standing but being pushed into education by shear political force. It is the same kind of mistake that put genetic research in the USSR behind by decades.

 

[Storm]

Memes are an equivalent form of pseudoscience coming from the opposite side.

If you don't mind, Luna, I'd like you to elaborate on this. To avoid derailing this thread, I've replied in an old one of mine: Memetics Questions. Thanks in advance!

 

[MindHunter]

Not having a lot of experience in the scientific world, it seems that scientific "findings" and "conclusions" tend to be in constant flux. For example, the Atacama desert is deemed inhospitable for life and is believed to have been that way for approximately 23 million years (a number determined by the findings of a few scientists) only to find later that there is evidence in the desert of hunter/gatherer civilizations. Now the number is 120,000 years of dryness (according to Wikipedia).

But this kind of process is inevitable, right? It's just the way science is. You look at what you know, you draw conclusions, and you assume that those conclusions are right until they are conclusively proven wrong... like the medicinal removal of "bad blood".

But that's where the problem is. The criteria for drawing a conclusion is very little, but the criteria for DISPROVING a previous conclusion is incredibly high. Shouldn't we then be constantly taking the "findings" of science with a grain of salt? Who is to say that what is "popular" science now will be popular later (the point at which your career no longer benefits from the former? I'm not implying that scientists intentionally draw incorrect conclusions for their own benefit... but I kind of am.

I think that we have, to a fault, a need as a race to explain EVERYTHING. With this drive, we see the inability to draw a conclusion as a kind of failure. You are only successful if you establish a "truth". But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

Bolded part: No, they say that quite often. Take a look in various research papers. They'll have done an experiment or review, and at the end, it tends to be (varying on the specific area of science), that they think something but don't have a lot of evidence. Such as in genetics or neuroscience. They still do get grants despite this in order to figure out the more uncertain parts. Everything is going to start from knowing very little, and that's what science is also. We've come a long way, however, in the grand scheme of things, we haven't.

Explaining "everything" is part of the basis of science. Are you complaining about science following the basis of science? That's like me complaining to a Christian that they're following Christianity; it's what is expected of them to do, if you're a scientist doing an experiment or review, you follow the basis of science, simple as that. Otherwise, if you attempt to publish an article filled with your opinions and little proof, no journals will even want to touch it, they'll just throw it in the garbage.

Yes they tend to be in flux because as we learn more, we have to look back and see if what we proposed before is correct. It's foolish to learn more then simply troll forward without considering "is this previous stuff correct?".

 

[painted wolf]

LOL... if I had a dime for every time I've heard or had to say that, I could pay for my education out of pocket! :jiggy:

Not having a lot of experience in the scientific world, it seems that scientific "findings" and "conclusions" tend to be in constant flux. For example, the Atacama desert is deemed inhospitable for life and is believed to have been that way for approximately 23 million years (a number determined by the findings of a few scientists) only to find later that there is evidence in the desert of hunter/gatherer civilizations. Now the number is 120,000 years of dryness (according to Wikipedia).

I'm not sure where you got this idea... but the length of time the Atacama has been a desert hasn't changed. Just the length of time it's been inhabited.

wa:do

 

[lunamoth]

The problem is not the scientific process, but WHAT we choose to research and TO WHAT END it concludes...

Actually, I very much agree with this sentiment. How we prioritize our resources and research efforts is very important and should not just be left up to the big corporations. That is why I support public research such as done at universities and non-profits, supported by grants from the government. There is increasingly a blurring between public and private (industry) research though, and the field of intellectual property raises huge ethical issues.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually, I very much agree with this sentiment. How we prioritize our resources and research efforts is very important and should not just be left up to the big corporations. That is why I support public research such as done at universities and non-profits, supported by grants from the government. There is increasingly a blurring between public and private (industy) research though, and the field of intellectual property raises huge ethical issues.

Absolutely! Often the most important findings come from studies that at first look "useless" to causal observation. These are the bedrock on which more focused studies are based.

Research done by corporations tends to be highly focused and very limited in scope.

wa:do

 

[lunamoth]

Research done by corporations tends to be highly focused and very limited in scope.

wa:do

And more disturbingly, basic research that is done can be patented and thus become unavailable for further free inquiry.

 

[painted wolf]

The idea of patenting of basic knowledge is very disturbing. :faint:

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Not having a lot of experience in the scientific world, it seems that scientific "findings" and "conclusions" tend to be in constant flux. For example, the Atacama desert is deemed inhospitable for life and is believed to have been that way for approximately 23 million years (a number determined by the findings of a few scientists) only to find later that there is evidence in the desert of hunter/gatherer civilizations. Now the number is 120,000 years of dryness (according to Wikipedia).

But this kind of process is inevitable, right? It's just the way science is. You look at what you know, you draw conclusions, and you assume that those conclusions are right until they are conclusively proven wrong... like the medicinal removal of "bad blood".

Sort of. The fact that all scientific conclusions are provisional, and that science is the best source of knowledge about the natural world, are related. In fact it is because scientific findings are provisional, and so subject to constant improvement and correction, that science is so good at establishing knowledge.

Human beings, naturally, don't have correct understanding of the the inner workings of the natural world. We just take a wild guess. Science corrects that guess over and over until it's as right as we can make it.

For example, we all naturally see the world as flat, with the sun traveling across the sky. Using the scientific method, some smart people figured out that it's actually round. Then one smart Greek guy figured out about how big it is. Much later another guy figured out more precisely how big it is. Meanwhile, a really smart guy finally figured out that it orbits around the sun. Then another guy determined that it's a tiny bit pear-shaped. Recently, we learned just how pear-shaped, and where the bulge is (just south of the equator.) So now we have a very good, correct, understanding of the shape, size and movement of the earth. But it's still wrong, and in the future someone will correct the velocity, or path, or shape, just a little bit, and get it a little bit more right. As Asimov said, there are degrees of wrong. By being less and less wrong, we get to something we call right. Without science, we just stay dead wrong.

But that's where the problem is. The criteria for drawing a conclusion is very little, but the criteria for DISPROVING a previous conclusion is incredibly high.

This is completely backwards. In fact the criteria for a conclusion being accepted is extremely high.

Shouldn't we then be constantly taking the "findings" of science with a grain of salt?

Yup. That's what science is all about.

Who is to say that what is "popular" science now will be popular later (the point at which your career no longer benefits from the former? I'm not implying that scientists intentionally draw incorrect conclusions for their own benefit... but I kind of am.

You can assume that everything we believe now will be shown to be not quite right in the future. It's also the absolute best, most accurate, most right knowledge that we have right now.

A metaphor: You're steering your boat across a lake. You see a light on the other side. You could set your course for the light and never touch the wheel, but you're likely to miss it. If you constantly adjust your course as you go, you're much more likely to reach it.

I think that we have, to a fault, a need as a race to explain EVERYTHING. With this drive, we see the inability to draw a conclusion as a kind of failure. You are only successful if you establish a "truth". But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

Yes, that's what every scientist says every time she develops a new hypothesis. Science is all about inconclusive findings. In fact, you could say in a way that all scientific findings are inconclusive, including the finding that the earth is round. It turned out to be not quite right. You have to be able to at the same time accept inconclusive findings as (1) inconclusive (2) the most conclusive we have right now.

 

[michel]

As reliable as the level of knowledge of the scientists at that time.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Lunamoth, I think that that is an idealistic view of science, as principle, not as fact. Scientists are human too, and they can be selfish and make mistakes. And science is often used as a tool by people in power.

The problem is not the scientific process, but WHAT we choose to research and TO WHAT END it concludes...

Religion, ethno-centrism, and other forms of though have also been misused by those in power.

Scientific Method is designed to expose mistakes, to delve further into each finding, tear it apart, and see if it stands.

There is not a problem in WHAT we research, or the conclusions, as long as it can stand further research and study.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

How reliable are the findings of science?

They are the most reliable thing we have, on which to base decisions.

Can the findings of science be distorted and perverted, to serve an ulterior motive? Of course.

That does not, however, invalidate science. It simply reveals one of the flaws in mankinds makeup.

 

[gnomon]

Not having a lot of experience in the scientific world, it seems that scientific "findings" and "conclusions" tend to be in constant flux. For example, the Atacama desert is deemed inhospitable for life and is believed to have been that way for approximately 23 million years (a number determined by the findings of a few scientists) only to find later that there is evidence in the desert of hunter/gatherer civilizations. Now the number is 120,000 years of dryness (according to Wikipedia).

But this kind of process is inevitable, right? It's just the way science is. You look at what you know, you draw conclusions, and you assume that those conclusions are right until they are conclusively proven wrong... like the medicinal removal of "bad blood".

But that's where the problem is. The criteria for drawing a conclusion is very little, but the criteria for DISPROVING a previous conclusion is incredibly high. Shouldn't we then be constantly taking the "findings" of science with a grain of salt? Who is to say that what is "popular" science now will be popular later (the point at which your career no longer benefits from the former? I'm not implying that scientists intentionally draw incorrect conclusions for their own benefit... but I kind of am.

I think that we have, to a fault, a need as a race to explain EVERYTHING. With this drive, we see the inability to draw a conclusion as a kind of failure. You are only successful if you establish a "truth". But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

Your take on science being in constant flux is correct. When scientific findings, discoveries, etc. are made it leads to new avenues of research and more data to study. New discoveries challenge prior findings.

When science is viewed as a methodology as a means to build a model to define in our own terms this universe the idea that science is not absolute is not as unnerving as many find it to be. It's actually how it works.

There is nothing wrong with scientists developing a hypothesis that is not supported by research. It's a fundamental part of the process. Science is defined by being falsifiable. The danger comes when we fail to remember that falsifiability and also when the human ego comes into play. There is a great little book on the market detailing the history of scientists actually halting intellectual progress due to our human failings of ego. But more of the problem is the media and it's abysmal failure in presenting scientific findings. Autism and MMR vaccines are an excellent example. Ben Goldacre on his Bad Science website actually highlighted when the British media outlet ran a story claiming one scientific finding and ran shortly after another story stating precisely the opposite of that finding. Just watch any program from Oprah, History channel paranormal stories or a news story in which fabulous claims about the world are presented (UFO's, psychic phenomenon, etc.) and weight the amount of air time given to the proponents of non-scientific or pseudo-scientific claims as opposed to the air time given to scientists or skeptics.

I wish I could remember the name of that book I mentioned earlier. It's buried on my shelf somewhere and I'll post it when I find it.

 

[jrbogie]

Not having a lot of experience in the scientific world, it seems that scientific "findings" and "conclusions" tend to be in constant flux. For example, the Atacama desert is deemed inhospitable for life and is believed to have been that way for approximately 23 million years (a number determined by the findings of a few scientists) only to find later that there is evidence in the desert of hunter/gatherer civilizations. Now the number is 120,000 years of dryness (according to Wikipedia).

But this kind of process is inevitable, right? It's just the way science is. You look at what you know, you draw conclusions, and you assume that those conclusions are right until they are conclusively proven wrong... like the medicinal removal of "bad blood".

But that's where the problem is. The criteria for drawing a conclusion is very little, but the criteria for DISPROVING a previous conclusion is incredibly high. Shouldn't we then be constantly taking the "findings" of science with a grain of salt? Who is to say that what is "popular" science now will be popular later (the point at which your career no longer benefits from the former? I'm not implying that scientists intentionally draw incorrect conclusions for their own benefit... but I kind of am.

I think that we have, to a fault, a need as a race to explain EVERYTHING. With this drive, we see the inability to draw a conclusion as a kind of failure. You are only successful if you establish a "truth". But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

i like to use isaac newton, the smartest man of his time arguably. for centuries, newton's "law" of gravity was the gold standard in astrophysics. then one morning old al einstein was sipping his coffee and he thought, "jeez. gravity doesn't work like sir isaac said. he's full of crap. you see gravity happens because space is warped by a mass. the stuff bends dude." well, not exactly those words but you get the point. now stephen hawkings and others are beginning to shoot holes in the great one's theories. science is in constant flux. every question we solve uncovers countless more questions that we never gave thought to. our testing methods become obsolete and even the language that we use to describe scientific hypothoses must be rewritten. quantum mechanics is less than a hundred years old and we now have telescopes on earth that rival hubble. i once heard that we learned more about the universe in the last ten years than we learned since the beginning of mankind. if that's true, imagine how our understanding of such things as the origins of the universe and the ascension of the species will grow over the next ten years. and the following ten years. yep, science is in constant flux. ain't it beautiful?