Voting on science
Get a bunch of demented third-graders together in a room and ask them how the Sun works. You will get answers ranging from “God’s big flashlight” to “elves on hamster wheels attached to generator-run spotlights.” The most charismatic third-grader will fight for her answer and she’ll win the vote.
The Sun runs through nuclear fusion. We’ve never been to the Sun. We can’t run an experiment on the Sun to guarantee that it runs on nuclear fusion. But every single sign we have points to that fact, so we must accept that nuclear fusion is the explanation. Better yet, every single piece of data collected since the initial proposal of the nuclear fusion theory has reinforced that concept. Our current theory is that nuclear fusion is the answer. We’re 100% right. Not 99.9% right, 100% right. There is no room for other theories.
Science works by truth, not by consensus. The data have been pored over for years. Scientists have submitted their ideas for review from their colleagues. When theory and data disagree, either the data must be proven incorrect or the theory must be amended to take into account the new data. If the theory can’t be amended, then it has to be thrown out and a new theory proposed that takes into account all of the data.
“But evolution’s just a theory!” they’ll say. “We have other theories too!” Well, that’s nice. But your theories are wrong. Create a hypothesis, base it on verifiable data, subject it to peer review, patch the holes, and publish it. Then we’ll talk. There’s no room for opinion. And until your theory is based on solid facts rather than assumptions and suppositions, your theory will not be taken seriously.
This has nothing to do with religion. The debate over evolution is no debate at all. This has to do with politicians manipulating people to propagate a “feel good” sense of human creation instead of the truth. You are being actively misled by these politicians, and you are being laughed at by sensible people everywhere.
Just as you wouldn’t go to a third-grader to help you understand the science of the Sun, why would you go to a politician to help you understand scientific concepts you don’t understand? Go straight to the source!
(This post inspired by this post on Pharyngula, originally quoting Early report on the Miramar meeting at Florida Citizens for Science.)
Tags: creation, debate, evolution, intelligent design, politics, stupidity, sun
Physics Is Phun | Jim | 
January 9, 2008 10:18 am
4 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Subscribe
By Marc, January 9, 2008 @ 11:54 am
Science deeply cares about the truth, but I’m not sure it’s fair to say that it doesn’t work by consensus. When you get into the “softer” sciences like psychology, ecology, and even biology, there are almost no cases where 100% of the data fits a theory. If so, it’s because the theory leaves room for “noise” (yay statistics!)
People tend to fallaciously map the “facts vs. opinions” divide onto the “facts vs. theories” divide. Theories aren’t facts, but they are more than opinions. They’re explanations – well-reasoned explanations based on the facts, and awaiting better explanations to take their place.
Science’s theories are wrong, too, in the sense that they are not perfect. (After all, big-scale and small-scale physics don’t plug into each other) But we have much better reason to believe them than “theories” like intelligent design.
By Jim, January 9, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
@Marc: Excellent point. When I was thinking of science here I was closed-mindedly only thinking about physics and its close brethren, the so-called “hard sciences”.
By Chris, January 9, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
While I agree with the overall sentiment, I would never say that a scientific theory is 100% correct. I believe that such an absolute statement undermines the very nature of the scientific method, which must allow the opportunity for a new observation to challenge what is established as fact.
Scientific facts are 99 and 9/9 % accurate.
By Annie, January 10, 2008 @ 10:39 am
@ Chris. I concur. In statistics, we refer to a Type I Error (rejecting null when it is really true - i.e., saying there is an effect when, in actuality, there is no effect). The thing about Type I Error is that you never know whether you’ve committed it. So, we statistically control the probability of committing a Type I Error (by setting our alpha level - generally p = .05 in the social sciences). Hence why good social scientists will never utter the words “prove”. Because we can’t prove something despite all the confirming evidence.
Of course, there is also the Type II Error (failing to reject null when null is really false - i.e., saying there is no effect when, in actuality, there is an effect). However, at least in psychology, we’re generally not as concerned with Type II Error. But there are ways to control it if one was particularly concerned.