Just for a minute, I promise.
I was on someone’s blog talking about the “science is real” conversations. Basically I commented when I hear that phrase it’s because someone is arguing against a scientifically proven premise; she had some thoughts that are still spinning in my brain this morning.
Can we talk about this part right here?
“There are a few scientific absolutes but they’re rare. Scientifically proven is an oxymoron. Science is a process not a conclusion. I’m afraid the phrase infers to “trust scientists” which makes me ask, “Which ones?”. “
My brain broke just a bit because…well, science?? There’s science out here that’s what I’d consider scientifically proven. With that being said — and I don’t mean this to be disparaging because I’m a smart cookie, dammit — my forte sits in the arts/languages field and not necessarily science as an academic pursuit. Ahem.
I get that science is a continuous evolution. Gravity comes to mind as a scientific absolute but other things were “proven” in their time then evolved into a new understanding as our scientific methods advanced. I also understand her point that blindly trusting every scientist may not be solid logic. So…I sort of see what she means…except science.
You see my problem here? This is not my field and I’m circling.
Anyone have some science-y thoughts to add? I’m interested in the whole conversation if you’re up for it today.
Riddle from the Middle 
science, religion, ethics. Now it’s all the same to some politicians and leaders, it’s scorned unless it can be skewed to fit the latest mad dogma they are selling today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well put. Sometimes it’s hard to find the truth inside all the noise.
LikeLike
I can so identify with your response as I’m in the same boat. I feel like some people just use that argument as a way to challenge what they don’t want to believe or to support their opinions. let’s take climate change for instance…. we have the evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This piece right here. Climate change is an excellent example of this. Talking with Frank (below) he puts the onus of real science on being confirmed by lab experiments. I just don’t see how that fits something like climate change because I don’t see how observable changes over such a long period of time wouldn’t qualify as real science.
In the end I think we bang into the same barriers we have talking about all sorts of hard things. When people don’t start with the same base understanding and definitions then there’s already room for disagreement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are two things about real science to keep in mind. You mentioned them when quoting someone saying “Scientifically proven is an oxymoron“.
One way to check if one is dealing with real science is to ask if some technology currently exists that uses the science. If so, then the technology confirms the theory. If there is no technology, there better be a lab experiment.
For example, the standard model of particle physics is confirmed by the things we use today constructed using chemical changes.
One the other hand, the theory of dark matter is speculation. So is the multiverse. So is evolution where life derives from inorganic matter and gets ever more complicated over time. So is even the creation of a star or planet from a cloud of particles. There are no natural, scientific laws confirmed by lab experimentation that justify us to expect that such processes occur in nature.
However, when people think of “science” they first think of these speculations rather than the computer in their hands. They expect people to believe those speculations as confirmed by experiment when they have not been confirmed and may have even been falsified.
Experimental science is real because it is based on experimentation. Until speculative science can come up with an experiment to confirm one is going in the right direction, it is just philosophy, often a politically contentious philosophy designed to divide and deceive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First of all, *thank you*. That oxymoron piece really stumped me and this is an excellent explanation for why she might have phrased it that way.
I read this on the National Judicial College website today: “A fundamental tenet of science is that facts and truth do not exist. Scientists look at evidence, perform experiments, and analyze data to understand how the universe works. In the purest sense, we cannot definitively “close the book” on anything and say it is a known fact. All we can do is find an equation that works and continue to test it under varying conditions.” It was an interesting shift in perspective for me.
If I’m understanding you, real science is that which can be proved via lab experiment or confirmed by using technology proving the theory. (Sorry, that’s clunky, but I can’t seem to clean it up.) I wonder how this sits alongside the continual testing philosophy. And does this mean any fact based information that cannot be confirmed by an experiment is speculative?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That makes sense to me. What complicates things is some people deliberately lie and most of us make mistakes. Science is one way to discern using experimentation.
LikeLike
People are reluctant to admit the truth of something if it clashes with their “opinions”! Otherwise they will be in full favor of science if it endorses what they believe
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is so true. We have a lot of conversations in the U.S. about facts versus feelings — that feels like a silly sentence to write but it’s where we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know. Here the debate is between religion and science. I know that my religion is supportive of rational thought and nowhere there is any thing or practice here which can be said to be irrational or against common sense either. But those who don’t want to believe, they find flaws here too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Sadje. I appreciate your thoughts. 💛
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like you I come at things from the arts/language field of study. My observation is that people mistake certainty with scientific discoveries, thinking absolutes [like gravity] are the only things worthy of note from scientists. It’s not science per se that bothers them, it’s not having certainty that infuriates them so they summarily dismiss it all. End of discussions. Don’t have to think about it anymore.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a really interesting distinction, Ally. Certainty versus absolute is a perspective I hadn’t considered. Thank you for this.
LikeLiked by 1 person