One quite
often encounters, generally in popular publications, the phrase, “Science says”
or its variant, “Scientists say,” or “Science has proven.” Generally this is
held to be ‘game, set and match’ in any controversy.
Coming from
a scientific discipline myself, I maintain an innate skepticism whenever I come
across such language.
Here it is
helpful to realise that ‘Science’ falls into three broad categories each with
its own methodology:
Applied Science
This is my
background, the discipline of Engineering and Technology. She is a stern
mistress, for if practice does not accord closely with theory one’s bridges
fall down and one’s machines fail to work. It is a very public discipline and
one can easily get mud on one’s face. This branch of science has a
well-established theoretical basis yet it employs a high degree of empiricism.
If something breaks, make another one a bit stronger so that it will not break.
If something doesn’t work, try another approach until you find something that
does work.
Pure Science
This branch
of Science uses the classical scientific method consisting of, postulate
followed by repeated experiment followed by conclusion and revision of
postulate if the conclusion does not confirm the postulate. It is essentially
an iterative methodology and depends on the ability to repeat an experiment.
Applied scientists stand on the shoulders of pure scientists and use their
findings and their theoretical formulations in building their devices and
structures.
Speculative Science
Some may
object to this term, but I can’t offhand think of a better and ‘Impure Science’
does not seem appropriate.
This is not
to imply that the scientific disciplines falling within this category are not
respectable, but simply to acknowledge that the methodology employed here is
quite different. This is because they deal with past events which by their very
nature are not repeatable. Thus they are not susceptible to the classic
scientific method which requires repeated experiments. The methodology used here
is forensic such that historic data is analysed and evaluated in order
to arrive at the truth. It is like Sherlock Holmes examining the body and its
situation in order to determine whether the cause of death was murder or
suicide.
Often
Sherlock will come to a different conclusion to the police as to the cause of
death though they both access the same data.
There are
obviously blurred boundaries between these branches of science, but what should
be noticed is that the first two employ closed-loop methodologies, the third
branch is essentially open-loop. This is why it is a happy hunting ground for
theorists whose theories cannot easily be proven or disproved.
Accordingly,
when encountering an assertion attributed to ‘science,’ a good practice is to
establish which branch of science is making the claim. If it is the third
branch, then,
KEEP THE
JURY OUT A LITTLE LONGER.
No comments:
Post a Comment