Skip to main content

What science isn't

We quite often get certain newspapers slagging off scientists for changing their minds, or for daring to get things wrong. At the same time, those who dislike the theory of evolution criticize it because it's 'only a theory.' After all, surely science is about discovering absolute truths?

I'm not sure how we do it, but we really need to redress the balance on just what science is. I think part of the problem is our tendency to use terms like 'natural laws' or to make statements about scientific ideas like the Big Bang as if they were proven fact.

Although he is disliked by many modern philosophers of science, there is a lot to be said for the views of Karl Popper. He typified the scientific method as being one of falsification. He argued we can never prove a scientific theory right, but we can prove one wrong - so a lot of science should be about chipping away at theories, looking for flaws.

If we are honest and grown up about it, science is a best guess based on our current information. Over time information will change and better guesses will emerge, overthrowing the current best. Some of those best guesses hold up incredibly well against what we observe. Others are, frankly, a bit shaky. But science is not 'the truth', some sort of absolute description of the universe and how it works.

Some would hold this as vindication for giving equal weight to every other theory, from creationism to alternative medicines. But this misses the point. Our current scientific picture is not just a random guess at what's going on, it's the best guess based on our current information. Unless you can come up with a better guess - one that better matches observation, or you can come up with new, reproducible information that supercedes what we're basing things on at the moment, then we'll stick with the current best guess.

If only people had this picture of science more clearly, maybe we wouldn't have the Daily Mail rolling out new 'causes' and 'preventions' of cancer every week, nor would there be attacks on evolution for being 'just a theory'. That's how science is - it's flawed, it isn't perfect. But it's damned good.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense