Thanks Kiran. I think that's a really great way to put things. I've been thinking about this in multiple contexts, especially when scientific research and findings are reported in mass media. It's quite easy for people to "debunk" claims when they haven't understood them in the first place and that's why I guess it's really important to understand how the scientific method works.
Although the scientific world has made the world comprehendable, I do feel a section of the populace have replaced priests in their lives with scientists. That instead of understanding the method and the principles behind a finding, they rely on the authority of the person or the prestige of the institution carrying out the research. On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 4:14 PM Kiran K Karthikeyan < kiran.karthike...@gmail.com wrote: > This thread has had me huffing and puffing (or perhaps hand wringing) for a > while, but the topic is such that any response can be countered. A proper > discussion on the various nuances of each cited instance where science has > apparently failed is one I am woefully inadequate for. Therefore, I say my > piece: > > One of the few things that has stuck with me since my school days is the > concept of significant figures [1]. There are more details to this concept, > but in the context of this discussion what is relevant is that an accurate > measurement [2] would run into infinite significant figures. In other > words, we would need infinite resolution in the measuring instrument to > make an accurate measurement. > > So the fact that science is approximate, imprecise etc. is a fair complaint > if the goal is accuracy, but accuracy is not practical. I am glad some wise > humans decided I should be told this sooner than later. Instead we have the > scientific method, peer review etc. which is probably the best that we > humans have come up with to deal with the infinitely complex universe we > live in. > > This leads me to the point I'm trying to make - the reason to accept > science and its findings, warts and all, is simply because we are human and > the scientific method is the best method of enquiry we have at our > disposal. This obviously doesn't mean blind acceptance, but it does mean we > ask for a preponderance of evidence which peer review (sometimes) supplies. > The system is not perfect but that is a problem with actors in it who are > unfortunately human. Add to this the last para of Heather's response on > whether we can ever truly know something. > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision >
