The Value of a Single Scientist

Science is an accumulative process. While the press may make ridiculous claims of miracle cures and future tech. from tentative experimental results, science is always conservative and always waits for more information to say a claim is true or false. And part of the process of science is for people to challenge what has been accepted as truth, to see if there is a truer, better, or more accurate version of accepted truth. The naysayers are, in many ways, just as important as those who contribute to commonly accepted science. It just doesn’t make the naysayers right. GMOs, climate change, vaccines, these are topics that are very controversial in the public sphere despite being more or less non-issues in the scientific community, and part of why these issues continue to linger in the public’s mind is because of these nay-saying scientists.

People latch onto those scientists, credible or not, who are doing work to support the view of these publicly controversial science arguments as proof that the issue is still up for grabs, or that the scientific community is being paid off, and other nefarious schemes. The problem? All of these science produced by these nay-sayers is generally garbage science. Science needs to be repeatable and falsifiable before it is even vaguely considered to be a challenge to existing theories. Even then, the new science would need to be tested for a huge range of variables to see if there wasn’t something else causing the results besides what was hypothesized. Claiming that a single scientist who found something unusual ‘topples’ existing though about GMOs/evolution/gravity doesn’t prove anything.

And I don’t think you want it to.

Otherwise we’d have ‘scientists’ like those who work for creationist centers ‘proving’ god exists, or others proving homosexuality is ‘evil’, or that white people are genetically superior to all others, which seems like a really awful world to live in, doesn’t it?

Science not proving or showing you what you want to see is no reason to go and put your belief in the first quack with a lab and their science. If their science is true, it’ll come out one way or the other. If it isn’t- and the vast majority of hypothesis aren’t true- then you’ll at best look like a fool who doesn’t understand science.


About kylock

Man, biographies are really hard to write because sometimes you just don't know what to write about and then you ramble on pointlessly for a while about your hobbies (video games, reading, programming) and end up boring your readers because they expect something witty and insightful (there are only two ways to save money, neither of which involves hookers) and then readership falls off and you cry yourself to sleep.
This entry was posted in Ramblings and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s