Discover more from Overcoming Bias
I like listening to journalists talk about science … most of the translation to outsiders comes from non-scientists simply because there are more of them, and some write very well. Yet, I find many times, when these journalists digress from a specific subject, to science in general they are extremely naive or duplicitous. If you go to The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, you invariably hear a bunch of caricatures of those who disagree with conventional wisdom on science—most of which truly are quacks, but not always—and they pedantically emphasize how these alternative views are ‘not science’: they have beliefs that do not have peer-reviewed tests supporting a falsifiable hypothesis. …
When journalists talk about science in general this is usually a pretext for saying those who disagree with their favorite idea are wrong, because they are unscientific. … They then caricature their opponents, taking the most inarticulate advocates from the other side, and skewering their illogic. They then sit back and take take inordinate pride in their scientific pretensions, as if their selective discussion was objective. The fact is, most ‘big’ scientific issues do not conform to the scientific method, where one puts out testable hypotheses, rejecting ones that are falsified.
He’s right: “science” basically means “study”, and there just is no simple way for outsiders to tell who is studying something well. The best way to study a subject depends a lot on the details of that subject. We have a few rough guides to expertise, such as careful language, formalism, attention to detail, years of study, IQ, cleanliness, endorsement by respected folks, etc., but there is no surefire ‘science’ checklist that can tell outsiders if research is good.
There Is No Science
Aphorism of the Day:
The problem with science is that there's really no science to it.
Here is a perfect example of a very ambiguous enterprise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
It has all the trappings of a free energy scam, except for a few things.
a) According to the New York Times, they have raised 60 million dollars from respected CEOs with degrees in Chemical Engineering
b) They seem to have had independent verification from a university lab
c) They seem to have already made deals to license the technology to power plants
Yet, everything they are proposing contradicts fundamental rules of Quantum Mechanics, and they have a number of scientists who reject their claims outright.
As a layperson, I have absolutely no way of knowing if this is a huge crackpot scheme. The company's papers and the papers that have attempted to refute them are using physics that is far beyond my comprehension.