Popular Science

I am quite a big fan of popular science and have been watching prof Brian Cox's Horizon series with interest. I think it's an awesome show and I like the way information is presented to the viewer. However, I have been wondering for a while about scientific "leaps of faith". I don't see anyway around them and as part of my own view on the universe, I am quite happy to make them, simply because I understand that is what I am doing. My concern is that recently I have seen people accepting things as fact because "science says it is so".

"Can you get the project finished by Friday, yes or no?". Despite being the question being couched to provoke a boolean response, the question may well have more than 2 correct answers. The most correct is likely to be "Well, it depends". Despite being the most correct it is likely to be one of the least satisfactory possible answers to the asker. People don't like uncertainty and this often clouds the answers we give or alters the way we talk.

Leaps of faith

If I am making a point the validity of my argument will rest on some key ideas. If my argument rests on the value of x in the following: x - 2 = 7 and I state that x is 5, almost everyone will be in a position to know if I am correct or not immediately. However, if I state that for the inequality 3x - 7 > 5x + 11, x < -9, well, I'm guessing that the number of people who would go to the effort of solving the problem decreases significantly. If I then argue that E = mc², well I think you see where I am going.

Of course, the validity of my claim can also be tested in practical application. For example, if I am talking about the pressure of a gas increasing with temperature and quote pV = NkT (the ideal gas law) you can rely on the fact that this is principle through which steam engines work. Thus gaining a degree of confidence in my point without resorting to first principles.

There are circumstances where the evidence isn't completely in yet and statements are made based on a consensus of opinion using the data that is currently available. One statement like this would be "the universe is 13.7 billion years old and will go on for ever...". The current evidence does seem to point in that direction, however, it's not the only possibility. It is possible that at some point in the future a new source of dark matter will be discovered, giving the universe sufficient mass to be closed. It doesn't seem likely, but it's far from impossible.

Reasons for post

I worry about the blind belief in "science" without the necessary tools for reasonable scepticism. Being wrong about the ultimate fate of the universe is one thing, but being wrong about the right type of medicine for you is entirely another. Whilst I applaud the current wave of scepticism over religion and homoeopathy, it unfortunately seems to go hand in hand with a blind acceptance of "scientific" western medicine. Pharmaceuticals are not produced by people working in the pursuit of pure knowledge, they are created by large corporations built to produce profit.

The current scientific thoughts on a subject are not dogma. Science is not a religion with absolute truths being handed down from on high. The scientific method is merely the best way we know of to solve problems and find answers. It is based on trying to find fault with the current theories of the day. It requires you to be sceptical of everything, not just those ideas which are not currently in fashion.