Picking sides in A Science Debate

[Guest guest]

At the core of so many issues confronting us today is a foundation of science

and, all too often, there is a debate about the nature of that science. For the

general population this presents a puzzling dilemma; how do you pick the right

side in a science debate? This dilemma is complicated by the fact that most of

us are not equipped with a level of knowledge, or the correct training to

understand its context, to be able to decide upon points at issue in some very

complex sciences.

http://riaus.org.au/articles/picking-sides/

Driscoll

Sydney, Australia

[Guest guest]

I think that this article is very relevant. One would think that there are no

sides to science. Science should be based on the facts as presented. However we

know live in a climate where interpretation of science is often based on ones

religious beliefs and if science goes counter to what your religion has been

teaching then the science must be long.

We are regressing to the the middle ages. Gallileo was persecuted for his

science because it went against the church's teaching.

However in science we need to be sure to separate scientific fact from

scientific theory. It is also important not to take scientific fact out of

context and stretch the facts to prove something that they were not meant to

prove.

I have seen posts on this very forum that have taken certain scientific facts

and stretched them to fit a topic the individual was trying to make.

The author makes an important point when he states that we should beware of

scientists making statements outside of their area of expertise.

This brings to mind a quotation  " A little knowledge is a dangerous thing "

Pop 1688-1744

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington USA

________________________________

From: Supertraining International <david@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 11:40 PM

Subject: Picking sides in A Science Debate

 

At the core of so many issues confronting us today is a foundation of science

and, all too often, there is a debate about the nature of that science. For the

general population this presents a puzzling dilemma; how do you pick the right

side in a science debate? This dilemma is complicated by the fact that most of

us are not equipped with a level of knowledge, or the correct training to

understand its context, to be able to decide upon points at issue in some very

complex sciences.

http://riaus.org.au/articles/picking-sides/

Driscoll

Sydney, Australia

[Guest guest]

On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:28:44 AM, " Ralph Giarnella " <ragiarn@...> wrote:

However in science we need to be sure to separate scientific fact from

scientific theory.

Hmmmm.  While I agree with the intent of the letter this is excerpted from; it

is important to know that a simple fact in no way resembles a theory.  More

importantly here in a scientific discussion, a scientific theory is so much more

that a simple hypothesis which may be not even be worthy of testing.

The lay public uses theory to mean hypothesis and the phrase " in theory it

should work " is the prime example of this misuse.

A scientific theory has not only been proven multiple times in a full range of

applications but has also been used to accurately predict new and unknown

" facts " or properties and beget new hypotheses for testing.  In due time over an

indeterminate period of validation and confirmation and successful use in

general application and new research, a theory may be accorded the status of a

law in the scientific disciplines world wide where it is germane.  

Theories set absolute limits and boundaries which are inviolate.  They are

absolutely true and final arbiters.  A scientific hypothesis may be based on

observations and experienced interpretation and reason, but must be tested for

validity and may be ultimately found false or inadequate to explanation.

Newton's theories became laws; Einstein's theory encompasses and expands Newtons

laws.  Newton's laws did not allow for conditions of scale and velocity outside

local observation but he was not " wrong' " ; his laws are simply a restricted or

" local manifestation " of the greater theories of relativity as expounded upon by

Einstein.

Silly ideas (hypotheses) like the much quoted " they said " legends are in no way

scientific theories.  Ex: " they said a man will never fly faster than the speed

of sound " , as if some scientists said it was theoretically impossible to exceed

the speed of sound, is simply untrue.  There never was any theoretical

prohibition on matter traveling faster than sound.  Engineers doubted the

ability of material structures  to overcome the stresses  involved in 'breaking

the sound barrier'.  Scientists had no doubt that ordinary matter could travel

that fast.  

Now for ordinary matter to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, is

a theoretical prohibition.  It simply cannot be done due to the very nature of

matter and energy.  This is a true theoretical limit and not subject to fallacy.

 This is a tenet of Einstein's theory and not an untested hypothesis.

I am sure the writer meant hypothesis and not theory speaking scientifically in

his e-mail but the point is important if we wish to understand science and yet,

use ignorant lay terminology which obfuscates the real issues of merit.  At the

risk of being accused of being pedantic, I raise this point in the memory of Dr.

Siff.

Thank you,

Boardman

Chicago