(Many scientists would argue that string theory falls into this category even though it is developed by many professors. If you see something that is pure mathematics and makes no connection to observations, it is not science. But telling when a theory has actually been falsified is not clear-cut, because an apparent contradiction may be due to overlooked changes in experimental conditions, or may just signal the limits of a theory.ģ) In the physical sciences, scientific statements must make quantitative predictions about observations-they have to combine mathematics and quantitative observations. So that rules out a lot of pseudoscience. Scientific theories MUST be falsifiable in principle-there must be some set of observations that would lead you to conclude that the theory is wrong in some way. Instead they predict (very well) in what rock layers dinosaur bones will be found. For example, paleontological theories of how animals evolved predict that no future scientists find a dinosaur skeleton in the rock layers laid down 2 million years ago, during the ice age, 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. How can historical sciences, like paleontology, make predictions about events that have already happened? Easy – they make predictions about what scientists will find in the future. If they can never be refuted, then they are articles of faith, not science. Of course, if you make predictions that something will happen, if something else does, then at least in principle these are predictions that can be wrong – refuted. If someone makes statements about the world that don’t lead to any sort of predictions, then they are not talking about science. Therefore you can be confident that the airplane you get on will actually fly. Aeronautical engineers can predict with precision what size and shape a wing will lift what weight with what power engines. That is why science has led to, as well as been enabled by, the development of technology. The whole point of the scientific enterprise is to be able to know in advance that certain actions will bring certain results. And without openness there can be no confirmation of what is done.Ģ) Real science makes predictions that can, in principle, be contradicted. Yes, some technological advances-a better widget or even a bigger bomb-can be made in secret at times but not scientific discoveries about how nature works. Until they reveal, such as in a patent filing or a published paper (even just self-published on the web) what they are doing, the assumption has to be that it is not scientifically valid. If someone claims to have a huge breakthrough, but refuse to share any details about it (because the technology will be stolen, etc.) it should be treated with extreme caution. Scientific discovery is fundamentally a social enterprise-the only way science is verified and moves forward is by sharing it, in detail, with others. So here are three simple rules that are almost always valid.ġ) Real science is open. Second, you will find a lot on the web about telling pseudoscience from real science, but I think most of it is either wrong or confusing. Telling good science from bad science – right theories from wrong theories – is a lot more complicated. ![]() ![]() In our work of developing Focus Fusion, we have often been asked, especially by people without physics backgrounds: “How can I tell if what you are saying is real? How can I tell the difference between your claims, and the claims of a lot of pseudo scientists who say they have cheap or free energy?” So this raises the broad problem of how to tell real science from pseudo-science, something masquerading as science.įirst, let me emphasize that I am here talking purely about distinguishing something scientific from something that is not science at all. ![]() A short guide to telling science from myth By LPPF Chief Scientist Eric J.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |