Once many people believed the world was flat.  Now we know it is more like a ball.  Once sick people were treated by bleeding – making a cut to let some blood out, believing this expelled some of the bad stuff causing the sickness.  Now we know this doesn’t work.  Perhaps what science tells us now will also seem silly in a hundred years time. 

How can we believe what science tells us now?  How could we NOT believe it?

How can we tell the difference between good science and bogus science?

Isn’t the world being destroyed by science and technology?

2.1: Conclusions on Scientific Method                                                              (Statement 7)

●          Science has become an open, transparent process, based on reasoning, evidence, publishing results for peer review, and persuasion rather than accepting any authority;  When we say “science can explain” something we mean that the explanations are the scientific consensus reached by this process. more (later)

●          However, there is a lot of bogus science, some of it innocent, due to simple mistakes, laziness, personal ambition, or ignorance.  A lot of bogus science is due to individuals or companies trying to make money, being deliberately misleading, lying, cheating, hiding the real data, and generally being unfair.  Bogus science occurs when the process is hidden, the explanations are accepted uncritically, the reasoning is false, the evidence is unavailable or is sloppy, the analysis cannot be reviewed, and we are asked to accept it on “faith”;  more (later)

●          But overall, as scientists learn more, our scientific explanations are revised, becoming more comprehensive, and we can observe this in everyday life.  So when we make choices about our actions, we should consider what the consensus is amongst scientists, and science can help us know what works.  more (later)

Scientists have developed useful guidelines to work out what we can believe about how things work:  The basic principles are similar to those discussed in Part 1, that:

1.         The truth does exist and that we can discover how to get closer to the truth;

2.         We can classify events and sometimes work out how they are linked in an orderly way;

3.         Even if there are supernatural beings, most events do not require a supernatural explanation;

4.         Other minds are involved, with their different perspectives: the scientific process involves cooperation and debate between scientists;

5.         Cooperation with other scientists requires good will, honesty and respect;

6.         Science connects us with the elegance, beauty and majesty of the universe.

…more

2.1.1.1  Some science is based on gathering observations then trying to interpret them.  This is appropriate when we know nothing of the area.  When naturalists (like Darwin) reached islands and continents they had not seen before they gathered observations about the animals and plants and samples.  Early scientists could record the apparent positions of stars and planets without explaining how they changed.

2.1.1.2  A fundamental problem is science is to discover what concepts are most useful.  How we classify the events and label them can be misleading.  Devising a new concept – like “gravity” – can simplify explanations.

2.1.1.3  Scientists build models to explain groups of facts. Some are simple, like the theory of simple harmonic motion to explain the swing of a pendulum.  Some are more complex, like quantum theory (about very small things) or the theory of relativity (about very large or fast things).  A model is a set of ideas that focus on a few features to explain how they change.  Models are approximations, like a drawing, a set of rules, or a computer simulation.  The best models are supported by lots and lots of evidence.  more (later)

2.1.1.4  Scientists use their models to make predictions then design and run experiments to test the predictions.  If the predicted events happened then we are more likely to believe the model is a useful approximation of that part of reality.  If the predictions did not come true then perhaps the model must be changed so it can explain the facts better, or perhaps it should be abandoned.

2.1.1.5  Scientific conclusions are falsifiable – they can potentially be shown to be false by some experiment or observation.  If it is logically impossible that any evidence could ever show that a conclusion is false, then it may not be a scientific conclusion.  Science is based on the facts.  more (later) 

2.1.1.6  Often scientists make observations they cannot currently explain properly.  For centuries, the path the planet Mercury followed did not completely fit any of the theories at the time.  more (later) 

2.1.1.7  Scientists publish their results as precisely as possible, so other people can run their own tests, to check the experimental procedures and the reasoning is correct, and to check the reported observations actually occur and that no observations are overlooked.  Proper scientific journals use other experts to review each paper they publish to ensure the appropriate standards are followed. 

2.1.1.8  Many scientific conclusions that have not been independently reviewed and checked must be held tentatively.  Conclusions that have been tested often and not disputed are held more firmly.  more (later) 

2.1.1.9  Sometimes in history there is a major change in the way we look at things, which is called a paradigm shift.  Many people in the past believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.  We can explain the motions of the planets more easily if we assume that the Sun is at the centre and the planets, including Earth, revolve around the Sun in elliptical orbits.  more (later)

2.1.1.10          Some observations can be subjective, especially when they are about people, for medical or psychological research.  Often the predicted result is not obvious and only happens some of the time.  About 15% of people will say they feel better if you pretend to give them a medicine but actually don’t: this is called the placebo effect.  To test whether there is a real effect, the best way is to have several groups of subjects: one group (the control group) has nothing relevant done to them, one group (the test group) has the real test done to them, and another group may have a fake test done to them.  The experiment is designed so none of the subjects knows which group they are in, so they can’t be biased in their reports.  None of the scientists assessing the subjects know which person is in which group.  An independent person keeps a secret list linking the subjects with the tests and results.  They analyze the results.  This is called a large-scale double-blind test.  more (later)

2.1.1.11          A large scale double blind test might show two events are linked, perhaps one nearly always follows the other, so we say there is a high correlation.  But that doesn’t mean the first event caused the later event: we say correlation is not causality.  Smoking cigarettes is correlated to lung cancer and heart disease. Scientists need to find out the details of how the events are linked – to discover the mechanism.  Scientists have discovered which chemicals in cigarette smoke cause changes to our cells that cause the associated diseases.  more (later)

2.1.1.12          Scientists are trying to make their theories more robust by using a smaller number of independent assumptions.  more (later)

2.1.1.13          Many genuine scientists are trying to be scientific, but don’t have enough time or resources to do it properly, so they run small scale experiments, with few subjects or over a short period, or with assessments that are not independent, so they can reach only tentative conclusions, even though the results are published in peer reviewed journals and have not been verified independently, so we must be cautious in accepting the results.  more (later)

2.1.1.14          There is no large scale conspiracy among scientists to follow some party line.  Scientists become famous when they discover something new, which is either unknown or contrary to current beliefs.  The most ambitious young scientists essentially want to show that their most famous predecessors were wrong.  more (later)   

2.1.1.15          We say science is “objective” because scientists are supposed to follow these methods.  When scientists describe their experiments, their observations and their conclusions, they have to do it so that another scientist, perhaps from a different country or religious background, can repeat the experiment, perhaps make the same observations, and understand why the conclusions were reached.  It is “objective” because it is not based on one person’s “subjective” views.  In science, it doesn’t matter where you were born, or what ethic or religious background you come from, you can verify the scientific conclusions, provided you have the training and resources.  Scientists have to persuade other scientists that they are right.  They can’t use force. There is no one in control.   more (later)

2.1.1.16          So there are some values implicit in the scientific method: tolerance, openness, curiosity, transparency, humility, non-violence, learning, skill.  more (later)

2.1.2.1  Scientists are human: they can make mistakes, they can be gullible, they can follow the fashion, they can cheat and lie, and they can be biased because their conclusions may affect their income.  People do these things in all professions.  This is why the most believable science is firstly published in peer reviewed journals and then independently replicated.  There are many peer reviewed journals, so even if there is a dominant ‘fashion’ there is diversity, and usually new results can get published.  more (later) 

2.1.2.2  Some scientific journals do not rigorously follow the peer review procedures, and some of the reviewers are not rigorous, so some results are published, even in respectable journals, which are bad science, and not credible.  more (later) 

2.1.2.3  Some scientists fudge their data but get to the right conclusion (Millikan).  Others fudge the data to reach wrong conclusions.  Others fudge the reasons.  more (later) 

2.1.2.4  Some people try to be scientific, but don’t understand enough to do it properly.  more (later)

2.1.2.5  Many people pretend to be scientists, but instead are cheating people to make money.  Often they pretend they can improve your health or sex life, help you lose weight or look more attractive or younger, when they can’t do any better than medical professionals.  Often they use scientific sounding names for ingredients, or scientific sounding names for their own organisations. 

2.1.2.6  Many people pretend to be scientists, but instead are lying to promote a non-scientific belief, such as creationism.  (Some people genuinely do believe creationism is a science, but they ignore some reasoning and evidence, or they include as evidence things that other scientists do not agree with.)  more (later) 

2.1.2.7  If we apply the scientific method properly then we are more likely to avoid these problems.  We do have ways to tell us what is false and what we can believe.  more (later)

2.1.2.8  Some people may genuinely believe homeopathy is scientific, but there is no “objective” scientific evidence that it works any better than a placebo.  more (later)

2.1.3.1  Some people try to tell us that often the scientific explanation for something is “only a theory”, like the theory of relativity or quantum theory or the theory of evolution.  But this is the wrong way to look at it.  These theories are like “models” of some part of reality and the parts of the model move around according to some rules.  The best models are useful because they explain many of the things we observe, they help us to predict what will happen, and they help us to form new questions for further research.  As scientists learn more they often develop new and better models, which explain even more.  more (later) 

2.1.3.2  Without the scientific models (or theories) we have now we would not be able to have any electrical appliances, television, phones, cars, airplanes or computers.  Modern life would not work without modern science.  Even simple, natural activities like farming required models of how the world works: how the seasons work, how seeds grow, how crops can be harvested, stored and turned into food. 

2.1.3.3  We all have models of how the universe works, and scientists make these more precise to cover some specific areas. 

2.1.3.4  Science does not tell us what we should value.  This is not something we can measure.