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.