Sun Research Yields Unexpected Results 197
Syberghost writes "There are two major theories about the composition of the Sun. One says that it has similar composition to the planets. The other, that it has enriched levels of oxygen-16. NASA has been doing research on the soil samples Neil Armstrong brought back from the moon, to determine which of those theories is correct. Today, we have the results; they're both wrong. It looks like we're going to have to look more closely at the composition of everything in the solar system to figure this one out."
Curious (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously there's got to be a lot of helium in there . .
Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Scientist has an idea.
2. Scientist checks out that idea with experiments.
3. Experiment refutes scientist's idea.
4. Scientist scratches head and says, "I guess I was wrong."
This pattern happens over and over and over again, and that's what people mean when they say science is not faith-based.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Castles in the sky (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, you need to understand what a science is. It's not just a "lab science". Not all science rests on laboratory experients. Many require observations. Often, the observations are not exactly repeatable. (How often will you observe a species of bird do exactly the same thing in the wild?) These sciences include geology, meteorology, astronomy, and a lot of biology and are referred to as "historical sciences". In these fields, you can't control the experiment, so you rely on similar observations and the ability to test theories with other, related observations. The key isn't the laboratory or the controls; it's being able to somehow falsify the theory. As long as you can do that, it's a science.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless of course a scientist is fudging his results to maintain a desired result. Science as a community product isn't faith based, but only a fool would extend that to mean that anyone in a lab coat is an impartial participant.
Not that you were explicitly suggesting otherwise, but I figured it was worth saying anyways.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:1, Insightful)
1. Scientist has an idea.
2. Thousands of People believe him, most without understanding his work
3. Experiment refutes scientist's idea.
4. Competing group of scientists argue with original group
5. Somebody wins mind-share
6. Winner declares infallibility of Scientific Method
Too bad that satellite crashed on re-entry... (Score:5, Insightful)
A satellite was sent out and put into L-1 (I think) for 3 years or so. It had an area of shiny hexagonal materials, of quite a few different kinds like I think maybe gold covered sapphire was one of them. So bits of the Sun were carried out by solar wind and collided with the collectors at something like 200 miles per second... fast enough to bury little particles into the hard collectors.
Then it folded itself up and headed back to Earth... unfortunately the parachute didn't open on re-entry. So it came tumbling into Earth and crashed somewhere in Utah I think. They managed to rescue a few good pieces though of the shattered collectors. And supposedly they didn't get too contaminated since the speed of the crash was much less than the speed that the solar particles were traveling at when they hit the collectors. So Utah dirt didn't get down as deep as the solar particles... and they're analyzing it.
I don't know how long ago this happened though... but I would think they would have as good or better data than studying moon samples.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
> look, proof that fire is hot!"
Sure, it's obvious to you, and it's obvious to me, but there are some very vocal holdouts. They have power not because they're right, but because they're louder than the thoughtful among us. So I think it's important to keep declaring what I believe and why.
Re:Curious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
To all of you who say science is faith-based as much as any religion, this article is an example of why you're wrong.
And your post is an example of how twisting an opponent's argument into something he or she never claimed and then proudly refuting it is a good way to get modded up without actually adding anything to the discussion.
The faith (thinking) people have in science doesn't cause them to believe that theories can never be falsified. That would be silly since the whole of the scientific method is built around the notion of falsifiability.
The primary article of faith of the true believers in science is that science can discover everything that matters. Or to put it another way, that if something cannot be studied via the scientific method, it either isn't important or doesn't exist. If you think the last statement is obviously and unequivocally true, then you have blind faith in science. The stronger your faith the harder it is to see how the statement could be false.
is vs of (Score:4, Insightful)
"Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of."
-- Voyage of the Dawn Treader (C.S. Lewis)
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary article of faith of the true believers in science is that science can discover everything that matters. Or to put it another way, that if something cannot be studied via the scientific method, it either isn't important or doesn't exist.
This is actually an excellent litmus test that distinguishes those technicians, engineers, and educators who believe in a Supreme Scientific Authority from the true scientists. True scientists are persons 1) who do not believe in any authority at all but require that the empirical method be applied (and continually reapplied) to everything whereever it can be applied; and 2) who recognize that the most important questions any of us ever face cannot be addressed by the scientific method.
In short, the true scientist recognizes that although he can apply the scientific method to many things, he cannot successfully apply it to his own life.
One way of stating the Copenhagen interpretation is to say that human perception and cognition is such that there is no possible way we can comprehend the universe; the most we can do is build models that are somewhat useful in certain limited ways. This strongly implies that the scientist must learn to live with the discomfort of always being surrounded by impenetrable mysteries.
Re:Scientists Are Allowed To Say They Were Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Then how is this practicing science? You can't say that someone is practicing science when they give up rational integrity. Science explicitly demands rational integrity. The communal process makes the growth of scientific knowledge more efficient. It exposes ideas to a greater number of criticisms. Assertions receive increased attempts at falsification; this quickly weeds out assertions that are not falsifiable. Weeding out non-falsifiable ideas is essential to maintaining rationalist integrity.
If one professes faith in a religion and then acts unconscientiously, against the explicit teachings of that faith, would you then claim the religion isn't really what it says it is? I'm curious as to how any of your ideal institutions or shared processes might deal with the fallibility of humans.