Re: what is science?

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>]

Lois Krause wrote:

> i've said:
> "Any scientist who says of an observed event, that it couldn't happen
> because we don't understand how or why it could happen, is a poor
> scientist."
>
> i'd love some comments on this from y'all. :-)
What you say is probably true, provided we can all agree on what we mean by
"observed" (and, no, my middle name isn't Clinton). Every day I read about
things that somewone claims to have "observed," or to have heard that
someone else "observed," or that they concluded from what they did observe
that the event in question had to have taken place, or that, etc., etc.,
... Regarding many of those reports, my immediate reaction is, "I doubt
very much that the event claimed actually occurred."

For example, Bienveniste's "observation" that anitbiotics (or whatever
chemical he was following) in a water solution that had been diluted to
such a degree that the probability that as much as one molecule of the
chemical under investigation remained was negligibly small still retained
its medical efficacy is an observation that I very much doubt is correct,
not the least because I (and everybody else who has examined this
phenomenon, including those who believe it is true) can imagine no
mechanism by which it could happen. (Sorry, that is an incredibly long
sentence, but I trust everyone can muddle through it.)

It is my impression that in this case it is Bienveniste who is considered
to be the poor scientist, rather than those who say it couldn't happen.

Another example can be found in the story of N-rays, which is well enough
documented that I won't go into it here. Cold fusion is still another. I
guess my point is that once everyone agrees that the observation is valid,
then your statement applies. A case in point is the "discovery" of
meteorites. They had been reported as stones falling from the sky for at
least decades before scientists were willing to consider the reports
credible. Maybe they waited too long, or they were too arrogant to give
credence to the reports of peasants or other unlettered (read: naive)
observers, but one must note that many (but by no means all) of the more
bizarre "observations" of things that don't exist come from just this type
of observer, so one may be excused for being overly skeptical of such
reports in the absence of corroborating evidence from ones peers. Wegener's
idea of continental drift is another example that falls in this category.
No one believed his observations until a mechanism by which it could have
happened (plate tectonics) was developed, and now everyone believes, even
though the mechanism that actually causes the plates to move is, I believe,
somewhat of an open question.

Einstein is said to have expressed doubt about the existence of esp because
he could not imagine a mechanism by which the alleged signals could be sent
over long distances without being diminished in intensity. No one that I
know of has ever proposed such a mechanism, and the existence of the
phenomenon is still highly doubtful, doubtful enough that I am content to
respond to such claims with the comment, "Show me the extraordinary
evidence, and I'll believe your extraordinary claim."

Just another example of how difficult it is to provide a clear and
unambiguous definition of science. To paraphrase the supreme court justice
whose name I don't recall (was it John Paul Stevens?) and who was referring
to pornography: I may not know how to define good science, but I know it
when I see it.

Hugh

********************************************************************************
Hugh Haskell

<mailto://haskell@odie.ncssm.edu>
<mailto://hhaskell@mindspring.com>

The box said "Requires Windows 95 or better." So I bought a Macintosh.
********************************************************************************