Why We Do Science

I was reading the University of Utah school paper the other day when I came across an article that illustrated to me better than anything the lack of scientific literacy or maybe more specifically the lack of any fundamental knowledge of science in general. The article was about climate change. And no this blog entry is not about the climate change debate. Rather something that this writer said really resonated with what I hear from people with respect to all sorts of science. The article opened with a statement about a scientific study that explained the ramifications of climate change in Utah. Of course the speculations were dire and the author said he wouldn't relate anything specific. Again I haven't read the study so my problem isn't with what it said. Rather I was aghast as to the authors next statement that went something like this. "Well you don't need to read this study to see climate change. Anyone who was outside this summer knows how much hotter it was than average and anyone who has tried to go skiing has noticed that the snow is extremely late." The problem with his contention is that while he may be correct that the summer was unnaturally hot or that the snow is unnaturally late you cannot conclude this from the data he has presented. The issue is the difference between perception and reality. Science is intended to see if our perception or maybe more specifically our perspective matches with reality. To determine if the summer is unnaturally hot you must have data of many summers. To know if the snow is uncharacteristically late you must have data of annual snow pack. Then you have to analyze these data to determine what the normalcy is, what the normal variation is etc.

I find a similar problem when speaking to creationist or intelligent design people. Many arguments against evolution come in the form of well it just seems too complex to have evolved, or that looks designed. I myself have asked those same questions. There is nothing wrong with the question the problem is using the question as evidence unto itself. To say something looks designed is sort of an ambiguous statement. Let me give you an example. Here is a picture of a cell membrane. It is a lipidbilayer.



It is constructed of phospholipids are arranged with all the "heads" facing one way and all the "tails" facing the other with the mirror image opposite. Seems well organized however this is not something so complex it must be put together. These will form spontaneously in water. That is right the membrane will self assemble. The reasoning? It is the simple thermodynamics of hydrophobic hydrophilic interactions basically the principle behind oil and water not mixing.

Perhaps the best example of where our experience or perception does not conform to reality can be exemplified in the theories of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Most of us are comfortable with the ways in which the universe works. However by studying QM and GR you come to realize that things we take for granted are not actually true. For instance an object moving is actually shorter than the same object at rest or that no matter how fast you go you cannot catch a photon of light according to GR. Or energy barriers that should be insurmountable can be tunneled through according to QM. We can take this one step further and realize that our 4 dimensions could actually be 11 according to string theory. Granted these oddities only become obvious at the edges where things are really small, really big or move really fast but still show us that our notions are not necessarily the reality.

This is not to say that I find all arguments for unanswered complexity wrong and my point isn't really to comment on creation/id vs evolution or unnatural climate change rather it is to get individuals to understand that perception is not always reality. Science is by nature attempting to limit the amount of bias by not taking things for granted. That is not to say that scientist won't take things for granted or are impervious to bias. Rather by doing science the bias and falsehoods will be exposed.

I would like those in the media or in areas of influence to encourage people to actually do the science rather than rely on statements of taken-for-granted fact or assumed reality.

Please Stop Saying This...

As a Christian and a scientist I sometimes find myself aghast at the ignorance on either the religious or scientific side(not necessarily saying they are opposing sides.) I would like to now clear up a misconception that many Christians have about the nature of science. Their misconception can be summed up by this statement, usually directed at evolution, "it is just a theory." Now I see this misconception coming mostly from the fact that those in question do not have accurate definitions for the words they banter about. I have heard it said that in science once a theory is "proved" enough it becomes law. This is not really the case. First let us look at what the definition of scientific(physical) law is.

Wikipedia Definition of Physical law (I know not the greatest source but in this circumstance it shall suffice)
To summarize a physical law is some observed(conclusively) phenomena. Let's start with something easy to understand and visualize gravity. We can see and demonstrate empirically that the phenomena of gravity happens. Now that is a Law. Notice we have not answered why it happens just observed that it does happen. (perhaps "how" it happens might be a better statement but you get the point.)

To answer the why(or how) question is where theory comes in.

Wikipedia Definition of Theory

So again to summarize, specifically the scientific portion, the theory is a postulated explanation that can be verified or refuted with the data gathered. Going back to the gravity example. Einstein's general relativity is a theory as to why gravity is observed, in this case a curvature of space-time due to mass. Now part of the theory is that it is predictive and is testable. Thorough testing of general relativity has taken place in the years since it was proposed by Einstein. Though still a theory it has a wide basis for acceptance.

If we were to refute an explanation because it was a theory we would be left with nothing. So when someone tells a biologist "evolution is just a theory" he will respond with "yes."

Confusion

So I had an interesting series of events last night. I watched the Rockies win in an amazing bottom of the 13th comeback and was informed that a close family friend died. It is strange when the otherworldness of a great sports comeback is suddenly put in perspective by the harshness of real life.

To be honest a good way to spend free time!

Ok sometimes at work when I am waiting for a reaction to finish or I have a few spare moments I browse the web. One of my favorite websites is www.physorg.com. Well the other day I had been in a rare bookstore and had come across a book in the science section about a CIP (Cook Inertial Propulsion) Engine. It is a book that basically states that Newton's Laws of motion were wrong and that this man has invented a new propulsion that he attempts to explain. If you want a good lesson in bad physics please read up on CIP. Well any who after leaving the bookstore I decided to look up more information on CIP and discovered some references to it in the physorg.com forums. After looking further I came across many threads involving really bad physics of people making huge claims followed by responses showing the inaccuracies followed by the initial poster calling them a name and then claiming to be like Galileo. Unfortunately it is not just enough to be persecuted like Galileo you also have to be correct in your assertion. Anyways the whole story is basically to say that I have found a great way of passing time. Here are a couple of examples of what I am talking about.

Thermodynamics!
Relativity!

Astounding!

Came across this picture today. I love astronomy(I know...why don't you marry it?) Is it just me or do parts of the moon look like they are indeed covered in Bleu cheese?Please enjoy.
(image from http://www.boredstop.com/moonhi.htm)

Chemists for Electron Truth

There are many conspiracies out there. Most of them revolve around the Kennedy assassination, 9-11, the moon landing, UFOs or explanations of how Chumbawamba's Tubthumping was actually considered music and why they required so many people in the band and for that matter how a group dedicated to anarchy could actually form a band. But I have found the truth. I have found that not only do electrons not exist but there is a conspiracy at hand to keep the masses convinced that they do. That is right, a concerted effort brought down upon us to veil our eyes to the truth. What is "their" purpose for perpetrating this lie? Well like any good conspiracy it mostly involves the military industrial complex, Aliens and some elite group of people who want to make a one world government and enslave the populous. In my next few posts I will be explaining in detail the holes in the "official" explanation and will link seemingly unrelated facts to show you just how deep, how tangled and how evil the corruption goes.

The blog name

Just to get this out there so I am not accused of stealing. There I go again, I can see how people fall into this trap, of thinking people will actually read this blog. Anyway, the name was first done by the American Chemical Society back in the 80's. Something about "It takes alkynes to make the world" or something like that. I thought it was clever. For those of you who don't know an alkyne is a carbon carbon triple bond. This will explain more.

If you can't beat 'em succumb to their evil...

Well here I am. I for the most part think blogs are rather annoying though I guess it isn't like a loud neighbor or the guy who takes up two spots with his car. It does take a more active role to come across them. I think for the most part I find blogs annoying because of the idea that people really want to hear what you have to say. I know for a fact no one cares what I have to say. I don't even care what I have to say. Look at what I have written so far. I have started 6 sentences with the word "I" and have started almost ever sentence with the letter "I." Point number one we realize that I am a horrid writer so that is strike one against me. Maybe I will look at this as more an opportunity to write what I am thinking....hmmm almost like a journal or a log...hmmm log blog perhaps there is a relationship. So this being my first post to you the reader that does not exist and if you do I am very sorry that your life is this boring that reading me passes for an activity, I will only say that anything is fair game on my blog. I will try however to not write critically about things I am unfamiliar with and try to identify if I am merely pontificating. I say this only because one of the most annoying this to hear is the journalist either ask questions in a tone or critique that which one they really know nothing about or two criticize those who have to make real decisions with real consequences. There are many that fit this description but Keith Olbermann is the poster child as far as I am concerned and Sean Hannity comes in a close second. But to be honest I shall try to stay away from politics and instead blog about my real passions monkey grey hound racing and vintage soap chip collecting.