Scientists are famous for making really cool questions and facing the possible responses through the most powerful and objective method we know. Wicked, guys. Now, I also have a question:
Who the F*ck named you emperor of truth?
Or, in more formal terms:
Why should people even consider believing in scientists?
This question is way more important than it appears, mainly because of the problem it represents for someone who's only use of a white overall gave him authority and now has to start explaining that his authority is actually coming from elsewhere.
For you, that do not dig deep enough in the deep abyss of scientific knowledge, science is also a matter of belief; faith. When the Dr. KnowsItAll from the MIT, you may chose to believe him or not. But, why do so? Even worse, Why should a scientist believe in another scientist? Being a physicist, how do I know when to believe into a Biologist, a chemist or an Astrologist? Not to mention lawyers, masons, and refrigerator technicians; being outside of this "circle of knowledge", makes it a lot harder for them.
We all recall those stimulating early school days, where the teachers interrupted our naps to tell us "Sciences are always right, because they apply the scientific method". Yeah, and how is that so different from the "(insert divinity here) because the (insert sacred book here) says it so" ?
The joke of the Scientific method is about, in first place, using clues to infer a idea is right, as we say in the hood to formulate an hypothesis (and by "hood" I'm referring to "a hypothetical place we suppose exists, of which we've not even a hint of location"). With your hypothesis at hand, you check what consequences it'd bring if it was right; more or less, the scientist's work consists on predicting the future... sort of (just like astrology, but this one really works!). The last thing you've to do is compare the consequences of this theoretical model with the measurable reality, with observations or experiments. If the consequences do not fit with the observations then it becomes a failed hypothesis. After that, one may reformulate the hypothesis to better fit the observations, re- experiment... Rinse and repeat. So, science is about trial and error until one of our hypothesis suits the need of explaining a little bit of our Universe.
This is the deductive method, because from something generic (the hypothesis), I've many consequences and phenomenon to deduce from nature, it starts "generic" and ends in "specific".
Yet, the scientific method has some "issues":
- To compare the consequences of the experiments, scientists assume several auxiliary hypothesis that add ambiguity into the mix (I love to call them "infinite ad hoc patches, the duct tape of the scientific method").
- A lot of "accepted" science that is published does not follow the same shade of Scientific method. For example, there's the inductive method, which is the one Darwin used to build his theory of evolution. Charlie, looking at a bunch of animal species, built a conclusion for ALL of them. The deductive method is like the deductive one, but vice-versa: it starts from something specific and ends at generic. It is a method of "making science", yet it is not framed into the deductive scientific method itself.
- How do we do to know it is right? Here's the pretty part of science: It is not (at least not 100%, we always have a bit of "margin" to perfect the theories and hypothesis a bit more). Here comes a nice phrase that is attributed to Albert Einstein:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
As a hypothesis gains strength by several experiments and observations we can start having some confidence in it, yet, never prove it as totally right, because we never know if a new hypothesis in another moment, or in another hood will ever replace it.
Controversy.
This thing of saying that a hypothesis is truth because it's coincident with the experiments is called "fallacy of the converse". And, as we all know, fallacies are something that "looks" valid yet it is just a smoke puff.
Crazy is to see that generally we see it totally different. People believe in science when it says that something is true (as the Big Bang or Quantum Mechanics), but they don't when they say something is not (like astrology, homeopathy, or those magic shoes that for some undocumented miraculous reason will make you lose weight). This is very funny because the strong point of science is: It can demystify a theory, yet never prove something right.
This shows us the crude reality, the wonderful part of science is not the capacity to give answers, but to make really good questions. the question is the only important part, it is what takes us to the labs every day. Many believe that discovering things that nobody knows is "ruining the magic of it", they spend their lives asking themselves the exact same questions (wondering or not with them). What they don't know is, every single answer found, opens up a whole new array of even more questions to answer. Science shows us, more questions. Without science, we would ask ourselves the exact same questions, ruining the magic of being able to reply to any, by saying a dumb "I don't know (And I'm not planning on knowing)". Nothing beats the joy of knowing.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back".
"Now, hold on a second; Renzo. Didn't all this text start with a promise of telling us if people should believe in scientists?"
The answer is yes. You've to believe in scientists when they assure you something, but not because they follow the scientific method, but because on how science builds the answers over the years. With questions, doubts, curiosity... Trying to answer everytime a "bit better". Science is a consensus of skeptic annoying organized question makers. A group of people that spends their life studying very specific things in a very delicate way, backed up by the knowledge of other scientists that also did the same thing; sometimes they even try to prove them wrong, in a bloody "evidenceoff" match; where some lose, some win... Yet, EVERYONE wins in knowledge. Shall Thor enlighten us, and show us someday, a new theory to replace the evolution one, an alternative so clever and clean that even Darwin himself will fall in love for her.
For your consideration:
Now, you should not ever "believe it or not". There's options, the prettiest one is, doubt, ask for explanations, more information.
Get out of that religious "faith" dichotomy some ancient tradition imposed on people to keep them in ignorance to control them. Aim for the theories that have more evidence and FACTS in hand, work on them fitting the best needs of the "scientific mystics" career you chose. Unleashing a classic never ending clash: My friendly ghost is better than yours.
If you liked this post and its informal way of talking about sciences, please, follow me for more!
Leave a comment either for good or for bad reviews. I take everything as constructive, and I really appreciate the feedback, even from trolls (at least a troll read it before being himself!).
Copyrights:
All the previously used images are of my authory or under a CC0 license (Source: pixabay), unless openly stated.
All the Images created by me possess a WTFPL licencing and they are free to redistribute, share, copy, paste, modify, sell, crop, paste, clone in whatever way you want.