Reith lectures 2010 - lecture one: The Scientific Citizen

There should be a counter-argument from a scientist of equal status, regardless of whether he, or she, agrees with a lecture of this status. This is because it is all too easy to accept all the "evidence" or evidence without a governing perspective.

For the last 15years university science departments have closed year on year, GCSE and A Level physics has been dumbed down to the point that in helping my son revise this weekend I used my 25year old O-level text books to explain how I solved several of his A level sample questions. Over half his A level topics in physics are at a level on par with my O level!



You can no longer (or schools no longer offer) GCSE and A levels in electronics, computer design and programming.



We need to bring science back to state schools and universities.

Who can you trust in science?



Big question these days - the short answer is nothing you read online or anybody you meet on the internet.



If you want an understanding of a particular subject you need to do your own research, preferably from textbooks.



If you try to research eg. global warming online you will fall into a quagmire of people with their own axes to grind, often offering mutually exclusive theories and psu8do-science based on their own beliefs rather than any scientific research.



For the record I believe in man made global warming purely because I don't believe in the Global Conspiracy it would require to perpetrate a hoax - pretty much every government in the world would have to be in on it.

20 years ago an eminent professor once told me "no-one ever got research funding by claiming everything is fine".



I don't think things have changed for the better.

I think Abacus's argument is a risky one: The idea of giving a counter argument in every scientific debate is important - but this often leads to giving undue weight to extremist opinions. This technique is often used to manufacture doubt by groups - all the public hear are two complex arguments, which by definition will be too involved for a layman - that's what we pay the scientists for!



Science should be about the evidence, not about who can get the biggest 'expert' into the media.

We cannot trust the scientists; they talk about objectivity but this is rhetoric. As we have seen in medical research, climatology, and the so called science of economics, scientists follow the money. Scientists are bought and only after a long period of investigation does the truth emerge. In universities scientists compete for grants and research contracts in order to survive and do so by pandering to the politicians and financiers. Journalists who have short deadlines, simply report what is given to them, usually uncritically repeating the press hand outs. In the end, by trial and error, ordinary people - many of whom are well educaterd and critical - sift through the propaganda and something close to the truth emerges. As for the BBC, their programmes dealing with science rely on hand picked media scientists who will say whatever the programme makers desire. As a guideline, from one who is involved with veterinary science, whenever a scientist uses a sentence containing the term 'objective' you can predict that the next sentence will be nonsense.

There is a need to introduce critical science, instill a questioning attitude in graduates, instead of conducting a discipline where survival and career prospects depend on the ability to raise funds for a university.

Who can you trust in science?

Science is not about trust or truth - it's about perspectives. We can never know the truth. The only thing we can ever know is that we know nothing. All science provides is theories, or perspectives. It is by combining these perspectives that we gain information about the world. As biological organisms, such information assists us in the world in the form of equipment and enables us to survive and reproduce and impart such information to our offspring. It could be considered as knowledge, but it is certainly not truth. Therefore, science, although useful, is of limited importance with respect to truth. Does this mean we should trust it?

Things are discovered all the time, even the most hardened theories are proved wrong or are corrected, for the average person first of don't believe a politician, that goes without saying since they are paid by lobbyists to do their bidding, fact,



all you can do is get as much info from as many sources as you can, then come to your own conclusion , be a scientist not just a ignorant politician talking but not understanding, make sure you know what your being told is right or have in your mind might not be right, but its the only answer so far, so don't go building your life around it, when people just accept things they are told or don't bother looking up what they've learnt then anyone could tell you anything and youl blindly believe it, which as we all know leads to mad mad mad things.

Science can be defined as the thought-system favoured by the majority of current scientists. If you think differently you are an “independent thinker”, not a scientist and papers you write will probably (but not certainly) be rejected by scientific journals which have a censorship system euphemistically referred to as “refereeing”. As in football, the referees are not necessarily good players but they do know the rules. And as in football, if you want to play you have to know and abide by the rules and there’s no point complaining that the rules are wrong or biased: they have resulted in phenomenal progress in our understanding of the universe and our lifestyle. If any scientific orthodoxy is wrong then finding evidence and a better explanation invariably results in a shift in thinking.



In the history of science, most independent thinkers are wrong, often quite nutty. But some are right and provide the framework for the orthodoxy of the next generation of scientists as Wegener did for Geology. Equally it is possible to find distinguished scientists who have made breakthroughs whose views later hold science back: Kelvin made a huge impact in Thermodynamics but couldn’t accept that the world was of an age that geology and biology implied: only when nuclear physics evolved could this be resolved. Similarly Einstein could not accept the direction Quantum Mechanics was going in and Galileo could not accept Kepler’s model of elliptical orbits. However, the fact they may be wrong on some aspects of their work does not diminish those areas they were right on.



With respect to scientific method - scientists never guarantee that they are absolutely correct, that is why they develop scientific THEORIES, not facts. It is simply a provisional model that most accurately fits the data that they have at the time, for example Newton's theories of classical physics were the best model that anyone could put together until far more advanced instrumentation allowed the development of relativistic and quantum physics. That doesn't mean Newton was an idiot, lied or "spun" anything. Scientists are not omniscient so don't expect them to be correct all the time. What we "know" constantly changes - Hawking changed his mind about black holes recently for instance, and Einstein didn't believe in quantum physics. Our knowledge of biology is actually very limited, so it is absolutely right that some scientists are prepared to question orthodoxy. We have to learn to live in an imperfect world as far as these choices go, and not to blame scientists or governments who generally are trying to do the right thing in public health. Similarly in climate science, there are big uncertainties in the predictions but not in the evidence that our activities are changing the climate. Unfortunately the press, or self serving organisations misrepresent the uncertainties to undermine the whole discipline. This happened last week when the press misreported the Royal Society’s planned document on climate science which is intended to better represent the uncertainties in the models and predictions, not to state that the whole scientific basis of climate science might be wrong, which is how the right wing media portrayed it.



Science works by evaluating facts derived from empirical evidence, postulating hypotheses to explain the evidence, testing the hypotheses and the predictions they make against new evidence and the hypothesis that scientists accept as the best explanation of the facts becomes a "theory". A theory can never be proven absolutely but can be disproved. Thus far for example, Neo-Darwinianism is the best explanation for the observed fact of Evolution and the Greenhouse gas theory is the best explanation of the observed evidence of climate change.



The public is very happy to take the word of scientists when it has provided the standard of living we now enjoy. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics, biochemistry, physics, chemistry etc have made the modern world, yet "the public" wouldn't have the foggiest idea about the quantum mechanics that enables their computer and the internet to function. Yet when they find scientists say something inconvenient, time to ignore them! The oft cited examples of Galileo and Einstein to show scientists being opposed by “the mainstream” are historically and scientifically inaccurate: in both cases they were opposed by political and religious forces, not scientific ones. Indeed, their correctness was demonstrated by use of the scientific method, not by rejecting it. Moreover both (and Newton, Maxwell, Darwin etc) took science off in a non-intuitive, non-common sense direction and this is true of most science. The scientific method was established because the senses and human prejudices are inadequate to investigate the way the world works. Consequently, to cite Galileo and Einstein as heros of the scientific sceptics is high irony!



Saying scientists are biased to get funding ignores how funding works. Nobody is going to win a Nobel Prize by simply confirming the existing scientific orthodoxy but by doing something new. But if you want to be a physics professor, you won't get a position if you don't understand and accept relativity and quantum mechanics; if you want to be a biology professor, you accept evolution. Same with climatology: you have to accept well understood thermodynamics and statistical mechanics and many other basics of physics and chemistry. None of these fields is intuitive to the public. Why should the BBC (or the media generally) be "balanced" in presenting both sides of the argument with equal weight? Should a 1 hour Horizon programme on (say) "The Big Bang" spend half the programme giving Creationists their side? Of course not and I would expect only Creationists to disagree with that point of view! The Big Bang is also "just a theory", relies on computer models and "unproven" science and huge amounts of money is spent each year researching it further. Yet the Big Bang theory is the best scientific explanation we have for the beginning and evolution of the Universe and few cosmologists debate the core principles, even if they do on the details. I don't hear anyone accusing cosmologists, particle physicists etc being biased and desperate for funding because they accept the basic tenets of their discipline.



Certainly, if the science does turn out to be wrong, it will be the scientific method that shows it, not rhetoric and polemics!

The great thing about science is that is allows itself to be openly debated, criticised, tested, proved, disproved.



However, you won't find this enlightenment in the general media and certainly not in the papers, TV and radio which love to sensationalise issues, leaving out detail in order to fuel controversy.



Instead, try New Scientist, Nature, Royal Society for all sides of the story.



Of course, our woeful standard of science education in this country doesn't help.





And someone keep John ("I won't understand this, so please explain in layman terms") Humphrys (Today, R4) away from science stories.

Scientific exploration and development is always evolving so we should welcome new ideas and theories but always keep our feet on the ground and question anything which doesn't seem to fit in with the BIG JIGSAW. If we knew all the answers we would be like God.

Who can you trust? No one!



Too many people are publishing work for their own agenda these days, be that additional funding or for political motives.



Just look at the whole 'Global Warming' issue, how many thousands of people have gained funding through scaremongering? And of course once it is pointed out that this has happened many times before, it is suddenly called 'Climate Change' to heep the money rolling in even though this has happened before too.



Of course a hysterical press and BBC who will print any bilge doesnt help.....



And all the time money that could be spent on real science is poured down the drain!

Who to trust with science is an easy question. Back in school there was a game called chinese whispers. The starting person whispers a short line to the person next to them. That person whispers it to the next person and so on.



If the information was presented as early as possible (filtered through as few people as possible) we would be better off. The best example is climate change where the media are often wrong, the gov adverts are worse and everyone has a different story depending what you read. This has led to a lot of skepticism over the science and reflects badly on the scientists.



I believe there would be much less of a divide and a lot more information about the facts for both believers and skeptics to debate without sifting out the rubbish.



Just as funny are the drug studdies which are also ignored if they dont say what the politician wants. Often the politician focuses on the parts of a scientific study and ignores the rest. This leads to skeptics accusing the scientists of being wrong, not because the scientist is wrong but because the scientists work is butchered by politicians.



Topics become polarised easily when politicians (not just gov but the media and other vested interests) selectively choose parts of a study as the results. By providing half facts (and sometimes total fiction) we can see how iraq happened with concent from the leaders, and how MMCC can be obfuscated.

Most "scientific research" these days seems to prove whatever the body funding it wanted proved in the first place. Science used to be widely accepted as unbiased fact, now its heavily influenced by the "spin" culture. As funding will never be totally unbiased, then neither will the research it produces.

I will believe all scientists without a vested interest. The rest I distrust completely.

Certainly not the media- medicine has been seriously undermined by fad diets, quack remedies and so-called Eastern philosophies, the main source for which is the media. All real scientists expect their results to be disputed and either upheld or demolished. But now we have counter-scientists. People like Prince Charles who espouse all sorts of nonsense because you can't 'prove' the science. Therefore homoeopathy must work because of the anecdotal evidence though, in fact, there is more evidence that a diet of burger and chips will bring you to a healthy old age! The idea of blind testing is just trickery to the anecdotalists. Meanwhile, on the other side of the universe, most politicians who studied classics, law or economics will drivel about nuclear weapons and the 'balance of power.' Anyone with any scientific knowledge will tell you that a rogue state with one bomb carefully placed can do as much harm as a massive state with many weapons. It was Russian scientists with their projections of what would happen after even a small exchange of nuclear weapons that persuaded the Soviet Union to work for détente, not Thatcher and Reagan! But the media prefer a political story. Scientists are treated as vaguely barmy while people who recommend boiling scent as a cure for all ills are accorded airtime and newsprint! The professional tree-huggers make a mint selling stone age (average life expectancy 32years) 'medicines'. The cosmetics industry will try to sell you bottled baboon's breath to treat your wrinkles and something from the hedgerow that Glaxo Smith Kline with all their resources have failed to discover, to prevent cancer. The media have gloried in seeding doubt about science. Look at how hungrily they gobbled up Dr Wakefield's 'research'. Having had a sister deafened by measles and an acquaintance blinded by the same, this makes me especially angry. Every time the drugs companies make a mistake due to unforeseen side-effects the media and the bottled hedgerow industries exult. Every time some 'Mrs Bloggs from Goole' recovers from hives after a mere 20 years of taking extract of sesame seed (£25.00 a months supply) the professional snake-oil salesmen rub their hands and cash in. In the public mind, the drug companies (money making businesses) and the scientists who work for them are muddled up. In media world all scientists are 'arrogant' and 'don't listen.' (By the latter, presumably, they mean they don't accept the superior knowledge of the Fortean Times). Doctors, notoriously, go in to medicine either to make a fortune or to kill sick people. The mortality bills of yesteryear mean nothing to these fanatics. It is due to science that people no longer die in their millions from common complaints and that we are not overrun by plagues. With modern mobility, if science had not found treatments for cholera and bubonic plague, tens of millions would die each year just through using buses and aeroplanes. The scientists haven't got the answer to everything but the professional doomsayers substitute 'anything' into that statement because it makes their ignorance feel more comfortable. I would rather have people looking for solutions in research than in history or romance. We no longer strap pigeons to the feet of plague sufferers to cure them. One of the great victories achieved by counter science was 1665, the great plague. The anecdotal scientists of the day decided it was being carried by dogs and cats so they shot or drowned all of their best ratters. Your modern anecdotalist probably believe they were still right- they just missed a few!

I have little faith in much of what scientists say when they are still awaiting proof simply because they cannot accept anything until it has been proved to be the case - so damage can be done while they happily await those results, when commonsense would say to do otherwise. When GM crops were being introduced there was some idea that bees and other insects would restrict themselves to flights of around a mile, I think, from the crops - if it is then found they travel further - it's too late. High intellectual powers do not always seem to go hand-in-hand with commonsense.



Politicians have too much self-interest to be trusted, and they mustn't panic the people, must they.



At least the media asks questions. What may be made of the answers they come up with is another matter.



On anything that I have any knowledge at all - having listened to the scientists, the politicians and the media and tried to balance things up - I then add commonsense and the safest route.

I believe in raw data not massaged computer model outcomes.



I'm also sick to death of conflicting 'expert' findings that tell us one day (eg.) meat is bad for us then the next day its good for us. Continual conflicting good/bad findings I ignore now.



In my youth Science & Technology went hand in hand, but not with the biased BBC, its science & environment cleverly propogandered together.



Those that want to live as in medieval times and be taxed to the hilt, feel free to your names forward first. I'm sure the scientists receiving doom and gloom funding will welcome your contributions.

15. At 10:53am on 01 Jun 2010, Phil Davies wrote:



I will believe all scientists without a vested interest. The rest I distrust completely.



-------------------------------------



All scientists have a vested interest. They want to be right and prove something because it often means more money for their research. Thats a good thing.



The people who review it should be skeptic and unbiased. The findings and methodology should be questioned and challenged. It should be compared to accepted knowledge and only after such scrutany be accepted.



This is why I find it funny that one scientist is accepted over another. It should be an independant group challenging the result and putting it into question. This means full disclosure of data and methods so the findings can be reproduced and proved

I think most scientist (including myself) are trustworthy. However getting the scientific message across correctly is another thing. The media filter out the important subtleties or the public does not take it into account. For example researchers find out that drinking one glass of wine is good for the heart. The headline in newspaper will be: alcohol is good for you whereas other research group finds out that alcohol is bad for the liver. The headline in the newspaper will be: alcohol is bad for you. Both studies are right but media and the common man say the scientists are contradicting and heads off to the pub anyway and I'll join them there.



By the way my doomsday device are perfectly safe.

I'm afraid I don't take anything "science" has to say as read anymore. It has allowed itself to be come tainted with politics and/or social engineering (i.e. selective funding), and as such has lost it's integrity. The best that can be done these days is to read around a subject, collect as may viewpoints as possible, and then reach my own conclusion. I certainly take no notice of politicians or the media that use phrases like "A new report says...." unless the authors name and qualifications are given, in which journal it has been published (and whether it has been peer-reviewed), their general view of the subject, who funded it and who is publicising it (and their adgenda) - and who stands to gain from the research.

6. At 10:14am on 01 Jun 2010, Davidethics wrote:

We cannot trust the scientists; they talk about objectivity but this is rhetoric. As we have seen in medical research, climatology, and the so called science of economics, scientists follow the money. Scientists are bought and only after a long period of investigation does the truth emerge.





9. At 10:19am on 01 Jun 2010, James T Kirk wrote:

Science can be defined as the thought-system favoured by the majority of current scientists. If you think differently you are an “independent thinker”, not a scientist and papers you write will probably (but not certainly) be rejected by scientific journals which have a censorship system euphemistically referred to as “refereeing”.



-------------------------------------------



This is so disappointing from two respected HYS contributors who doubtless would consider themselves to be objective. Even in the pharmaceutical industry, scientists do not 'follow the money' but work to provide the treatments that the public crave and claim as their right. University science has had legions of heroes who care only for truth. Just a few examples; research into smoking and its connexion with lung cancer, gastric ulcer (by the Nobelists Warren and Marshall), brain damage and 'leaded' petrol (Professor John Mann), the refusal by Chain and Florey to patent their method for the production of the penicillin nucleus, instead choosing to give it to the World.



Science is not a 'thought-system favoured by scientists.' It is a method of enquiry and about experiment rather than 'table talk'. Scientific journals require papers containing data and evidence not just speculation. These days the natural sciences are largely not open to any but skilled professionals in well-equipped teams. The inconsequential paper on 'synthetic life' (much praise and wondered at by the uninformed on HYS) has no less than 23 authors.

All good journals are refereed. I have published many papers in such journals and refereed papers too. These papers, at least for journals such as 'Cell', 'Nature" and 'Science" are submitted to referees without the authors' names to avoid the prejudice you claim. Many papers have overturned former current paradigms, Albert Einstein's in particular, who published on special relativity when just a clerk in the Swiss Patents Office.

What possible motivation would journals have for not exposing the wonders of the Universe for all who can comprehend them to see?



You say, 'if you write papers', How many papers have you had rejected and in which journals?



ALL good scientists are independent thinkers, they have to be. What this world owes to science is incalculable. Its truth is manifest in the power it gives us to control our environment, for good if politicians allow, also power of prediction.

I posted a comment earlier on the live blog around 10am that seems to have disappeared...fine speaker, splendid mind...

...my observation was prompted by Sue Blackmore's comment: she questioned the necessity of relying upon the authority of other scientists' work in a complex research environment - surely we need to establish a consensually accepted ethical/cognitive context for all scientific activity, one that allows for the conceptual implications of a paradigmatic "ecology of science" that does not just reduce the concept to a particular specialisation - ie the "science of ecology," however "deeply" felt by some - but recognises and affirms that any process related to scientific or experimental praxis is subject to the moral constraints implicit in what Jacob Bronowski famously described, as a civilised "dialogue with nature." Science is not value neutral, nor exempt from cultural/social contexts and political/economic interests. It can indeed be a unifying and non-divisive agency, but only if the planetary environment in which it is conducted - that ultimately determines the parameters and limits of its scope - is fully recognised, accepted, & thus respected and sufficiently revered. Risk assessment is not enough, bio-empathy and visionary "biophilia" can also augment and inform our natural instinct for curiosity, and sensitively moderate the all-too human appetite for knowledge. The poet, the artist and mystic are equally entitled to express their understanding in full measure, as there will always be more to life than applied symbolic logic.

Wonderful comment, Biased Beeb, no. 15.

I totally agree.

Trust? The trouble is with all the ways we get bad information about science.



Scientists themselves have, over many years organised the peer-review system, by which expensive journals publish technical papers that must be approved by a review board that understands the research and the factual rigor appropriate to the article.



By contrast, the popular press and politicians are constrained by the principles of free speech to include _anything_ that doesn't break laws or incite others to do so. For them truth is a hoped-for side effect!



If you are interested in an area of research, as maybe to decide its future confirmations or corrections -- very risky always --, you must even more than usual take the popular press -- all of it -- with a grain of salt. Make the press's unreliable pronouncements an incentive to learn enough about the subject and pony up the money to read the journals on the subject.



Short of plowing through articles in individual journals, the (expensive) magazines Nature and Science collect journal articles on various subjects and do reviews of recent findings and debates.



It's easy to say this process, like any other human one, is corrupt, but it bears closer examination than those of business, the popular press and politicians.

The media don't report science very well, single-issue groups have their own agendas, most people don't understand statistics or probability theory so have little to judge a news story on.

Religious groups have no role to play in scientific debates.

Most people who pontificate on science couldn't explain how a picture appears on their TV.

It's a scandal that a humanities graduate can know nothing about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and be proud if the fact. It's an equal scandal that a science graduate can be culturally illiterate.

Scientists are the most trustworthy because they are subject to peer review by suitably qualified rival scientists. Once a scientist tarnishes his/her reputation, they are finished in their field; so the scientists tend to be truithfull and act with good integrity. Politicians are the least trustworthy and have track record of lies and deceit; I don't believe anything any of these wretched creatures say.

I trust no one, most scientific revelations are either funded by governments to obtain the result they want or scientists have their own agendas. I certainly do not trust the media reports of science, they usually pick up on tid bits that are released by organisations trying to promote their work or gain more charitable donations.



There are certain fields of science that if you disagree with the 'common understanding' you are ostracised & any evidence you may have to prove your point is ignored. Climate science is one such field which has been bought by governments for their own devisive ends. I would love to see some objective research in to 'climate change' which isn't dependent on government funding so it can tell us without prejudice, or massaging the figures, what is happening on our planet.

I suspect that much of the criticism of science comes from people who don't understand the scientific process and the many checks that are built into the process. All too often you see people demanding "proof" of a scientific theory before they are willing to accept it. By making the demand for "proof" they are merely displaying their own ignorance of science because no scientific theory has ever or ever will be "proved". That is not how science works. Some mathematical theories, though not all, can be proved, but science is not mathematics.



The scientific process is to collect evidence and from that evidence to construct a theory to explain the observations. The theory is then used to make predictions and the predictions checked to see if they support the theory. The theory and evidence are then published so that other scientists can check it. Other scientists will then carry out their own experiments, collecting their own data from the same or different sources to see if they confirm the original theory or whether there are inconsistencies between the the two. Those results are also published for other scientists to check. Every new experiment testing the theory will be looking for inconsistencies, special cases or will try to improve the accuracy of the original work.



As more and more papers are published on different aspects of the science, tested in different ways, by different research groups, in different countries confidence in the theory grows.

The theory of anthropogenic global warming for example was first proposed by scientists well over a hundred years ago. Since then thousands of papers researching many different aspects of the theory have been published by research groups from all over the world. Many alternative causes of global warming have been proposed, researched and found unable to describe what is happening, leaving human induced global warming as the most likely principle cause.



Science can never be more than our best understanding of a process with the evidence that is available. Scientific theories develop and improve with time as more evidence becomes available. For all its lack of "proof" science has still made it possible to design computers, television sets, mobile phones, airoplanes and nuclear power stations, all based on theories that have never been "proved".

Science reporting in the media is poor at best. You only have to look at reporting on the opening of the LHC to see how appalling it can get - apparently doom-mongering passes for science in the media these days.



And it goes without saying, but you shouldn't trust a politician to tell the truth about anything.



As others have said, if you want the truth about science, check the textbooks, and take the advise of the experts that wrote them. And the internet is NOT a good source of information, since anyone can type any old gibberish they want.

26. At 11:41am on 01 Jun 2010, LeftieAgitator wrote:



'The media don't report science very well, single-issue groups have their own agendas, most people don't understand statistics or probability theory so have little to judge a news story on.

Religious groups have no role to play in scientific debates.

Most people who pontificate on science couldn't explain how a picture appears on their TV.

It's a scandal that a humanities graduate can know nothing about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and be proud if the fact. It's an equal scandal that a science graduate can be culturally illiterate.'



------------------------------------------



Spot on!

It is grieving how often scientists are regarded as malevolent, conspiratorial, cruel to animals or in the pockets of those bent on world domination. Many believe that they have control of the fate of their discoveries. Sometimes they are portrayed as filling in idle hours with shallow 'what if?' experiments. To the contrary, all the respected scientists I know are extremely focused and work very hard. In my experience scientists also have far more integrity than the politicians and industrialists who direct the exploitation of their scientific discoveries.

Over the past two or three centuries the Western world has gradually extricated itself from the "Age of Religion" and moved into the "Age of Reason".



This transition involved the replacement of the blind acceptance of religious dogma by a new paradigm based on experimentation and verification.



This process was necessarily painful, but served mankind exceedingly well, leading to rapid advances in knowledge and adaptability, both key to the continuing survival of the human species.



Although this transition is not yet complete, as evidenced by the continued existence of religious belief systems which defy logical or evidence based reasoning, it is clear that as a strategy for survival - the evolutionary prerogative - the scientific paradigm has proven to be vastly more competent than any of the previously tested models.



However, we now seem to be making a dangerous, potentially fatal diversion from the true path to knowledge, and moving to an age where science which is seen to offer "incorrect" answers, is unsupportive of a strongly held political position, or is seen to threaten vested financial interests is disparaged, suppressed, starved of funding, etc in order to make sure it does not see the light of day.



So often now, before I accept some new theory or postulation from the scientific community, I find it necessary to research not just the science, but the political affinities and allegiances of the scientist or body involved.



This is not how it should be.

I'm more likely to believe someone without an agenda than someone with. For example, a scientist from a petrolium company claiming they have data proving fossil fuel burning does no harm to the environment has less credibility than a scientist on behalf of Greenpeace saying the same thing. Also the reverse of the above statement is true. Im more likely to believe the petrolium scientist saying fossil fuel burning is more damaging than a Greenpeace scientist.



If anything, let them make their figures both public and transparent, arguetheir cases and let the publicmake their own minds up.



After the whole MMGW figure massaging that was reported, I'm very reluctant to believe it is true.

32. At 12:40pm on 01 Jun 2010, Potty Harry wrote:



"Although this transition is not yet complete, as evidenced by the continued existence of religious belief systems which defy logical or evidence based reasoning, it is clear that as a strategy for survival - the evolutionary prerogative - the scientific paradigm has proven to be vastly more competent than any of the previously tested models."



Ths is the fundamental flaw in evidence-based reasoning. Just because you haven't found the evidence, it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Just unproven.

34. At 1:04pm on 01 Jun 2010, Sue Denim wrote:



Ths is the fundamental flaw in evidence-based reasoning. Just because you haven't found the evidence, it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Just unproven.



-------------------------



There is limitations for this though. Dara o' Briain said it perfectly during a performance when he said-



"Science knows it doesnt know everything or it would stop."



and



"That does not mean you can fill the gaps with any old fairy story and make believe"



To make a few assumptions is expected but to state rubbish as fact is irrisponsible. People come together to solve problems under science. Religion divides people and drives wars.



There is much unproven to be discovered but until proven I will not assume a gremlin did it

I find it really odd that when people question the ethics of scientists they always refer to the global warming debate and the drug industry. Yet they forget about the amount of basic science that has gone into the objects they use. For example modern jet airliners use research from every science: Physics, engineering (mechanical and electronic), chemistry and biology. Only one hundred years ago a trip to say the west coast of the US would take weeks now only half a day and the worst problem you have is the standard of the food and jet lag. I am also depressed how teenagers are surgically attached to their mobile phones but don't give a fig how they worked.



I work in a physics research department and I can assure you we do not follow the money. As far as I know the experiment I am involved with has no "spin off" potential and yet it may answer one of the most important questions in modern particle physics. Do people really think the LHC was built at the behest of some political pressure group? And when papers are published do people think that we all fooled if thee is an error. All papers go through several layers of peer review. First within the experiment, which usually have many collaborators then they go forward for independent scrutiny by unknown reviewers. Finally all important results are publicly presented and the questioning can get very tough. In fact on a few occasions I have seen guys shouting at each other across the lecture theatre.



The problems arise when the public ask sensible questions and get fobbed off or told they cannot have access to data. When scientists do this then they get the public ridicule they deserve. In my field of study we depend on public funding and we are very grateful. Therefore we are always giving public lectures and welcome any questions from the public and we give as clear an answer as we can.

Simple rule - follow the money. The more money at stake the less likely the truth.

Scientists need grants for their activities. How do you get a grant? Adopt fear tactics as per modern government. The biggest of all at the moment; Global warming. Predict global disaster - get a grant. Bigger the worry, bigger the grant. If you can link it to environmental issues that lets the government tax us more then your quid’s in. Your subsidised education has not been in vain. Well done.

I wouldn't trust politicians as a matter of course but scientists are not exactly squeaky clean. What happened to Immanuel Velikovsky and his supporters? What came of Tesla's theories and experiements?



It's all about getting jobs and to do that you praise the ones at the top. Never fails.

37. At 1:31pm on 01 Jun 2010, Hugh Haddow wrote:



Simple rule - follow the money. The more money at stake the less likely the truth.

Scientists need grants for their activities. How do you get a grant? Adopt fear tactics as per modern government. The biggest of all at the moment; Global warming. Predict global disaster - get a grant. Bigger the worry, bigger the grant. If you can link it to environmental issues that lets the government tax us more then your quid’s in. Your subsidised education has not been in vain. Well done.



-------------------------------



I defend the scientists here who are researching the effect of co2 on the climate. It is the evaluating bodies which need to be non-biased as all scientists need peer review. One which I often mention is the IPCC who claim to have many scientists working for them although they are not themselves the scientists. They have made so many 'mistakes' and omissions that the skeptics were using them to oppose the science. This has gone further as certain countries have rejected the IPCC and are doing the science themselves due to major mistakes.



This is not the scientists scaremongering but the institutions playing on fear. Unfortunately this reflects badly on the scientists and the science causing doubt and increasing scepticism.



I have pointed this out in the past, not to argue against the possibility of MMCC but to oppose the 'pro lobby' misinforming people. As a result a couple of commentors (they are here and know who I mean) defended the scaremongering by the IPCC because it defended their MMCC theory. While what they defended was lies, it was ok because if the known MMCC theory is right it 'might' happen, even on a completely different timescale. That is not science.



The funny part is they then oppose skeptics because 'they dont know what they are talking about', 'the skeptic scientist (whatever qualification) is not approved by the IPCC' or some other non-scientific and religion based viewpoint.



I am glad the topic of scientific disclosure has been brought up because the facts need presenting to the public, yet we are currently informed by institutions of spin with an agenda.

"The only thing to trust" is the results some of the time?

While I would echo the tone and tenor of the post @9 (James T Kirk - nice handle there), I would add that "trust" is a highly emotive word. In fact, I trust neither scientists nor journalists, nor even politicians. Why not? Because they are all people: they are subject to human motiviations and forces. And while even data can be adulterated (and has been), I am more inclined trust evidence and reason, which helps to provide insight. It does not guarantee truth, as of course to insist on one single truth is generally simplistic and distracting.



To leave the decisions and thinking to authority is folly. The only way to filter is to look oneself. This is not easy, and requires a massive overhaul of our system of education, placing science and the understanding of the world around us closer to the centre. In recent years it seems that science has become a peripheral concern in some educational circles and that needs to change. I should also stress that this should not be at the expense of the arts, which also have a huge aprt yo play in our understanfding of ourselves.

Science is brilliant. It helps us to understand so much in life.



However, it would be very wrong for individuals to blindly put all of their faith and belief into all scientific theory, as theory by it's nature needs to be questioned..... and questioned again. Theory should never be delivered as 'fact' because a theory is the general belief.



And science by it's very nature is an observer, an observer of life. It can therefore only observe what it has developed to see.



Science is not the rule, science is the pupil learning about life, with so much still to understand.



What science cannot see today.. it may see tomorrow. And what science thought it knew today.. may be corrected tomorrow.

Years of continuing dilution and dumbing down of science in order to pacify the baying "too thick to understand but want have a say anyway" brigade.



A B.Sc (Hons) degree in chemistry, a M.Sc in physical chemistry, and 21 years in the industry - and I got out of R&D and into sales because quite frankly being a scientist makes you about one step up from the toilet cleaner in most people's estimations.



Science is a dead subject in the UK.

Science is not the problem, it's the gutter press in bad reporting and sensationalising negative areas.

Who can you trust in science? This might be a silly question and anyway it's impossible to respond to without being a smart alec. However - isn't it the point of science that you believe no-one? That you believe the evidence? And isn't that exhilarating? That you don't have to believe god or John Humphrys or the writer of the Daily Mail editorial? Or better still, that you don't even have to listen to them?

It was good to hear mention of the `secret` Nixon `war on cancer`which crippled the US economy,but that should have been expected,as Nixon was not only a genocidal war criminal but impeached for a burglary conspiracy.



Also not mentioned was that the medical system Nixon used to destroy the economy was devised by Harvey,also a fellow war criminal at:





https://americanstalingrad.bravehost.com/VampyreDoktor.htm





We forget at our peril that the point about Harveyism pushing MMR is not that it MIGHT have caused autism,but would do if it could.Science,on the other hand,is quite a different subject.

When in school (left 10 years ago) I did no work in science and for physics got an A. Since leaving school I have discovered I like Science and Maths and wish that at some point a teacher any teacher had done there job.



By this I mean IF someone had noticed I was way above the curve in physics I might of stuck with it. I started 6th form (A levels) but had a few personal issues that got in the way, at no point did any teacher make any effort to help me study but I did have quite a few telling me what a failure I was.



Currently I'm reviewing String theory but find all the gaps in my education to be a real problem. IF I had been thought properly and had some encouragement to try I would likely be either working on a PHD or be a content physicist somewhere.



I fear this will continue and many more potential scientists will be lost, I take some blame myself for not taking school seriously enough but then again I was a child. albeit one that read A brief history of time at 14 because it was interesting.

Agree with post #10 in recommending 'New Scientist' and 'Nature' magazines?



Wouldn't it be great, if nursery, primary, right through to high schools, had these great publications available to children - and teachers/educators too?



'New Scientist' is amazing - stumbled on it while my daughter was dating a vulcanologist? This magazine is not stuffy, nor is it dreary. It's one of the most under-estimated publications you can enjoy whatever your age or education?

Almost no one except scientists understand what science is.

I cannot recall the last TV programme or radio programme that gave a scientific account of anything:

science programmes are usually biographies (witness the Channel 4 recent output).

Newspapers fill their pages with Arts, no space is give to science in the same way.

The national curriculum has no science in it - not even the so called science courses.



The effect of all this is to make almost all answers to the question ill informed and unreliable.

Science is NOT about opinion or money or industry.

Comments about courting the grace of funding councils are just plain wrong.

Science is about truth, and most scientists want to be true and honest.

Mass State Education is Mr Gove MP.Education Minister's, brief?



Part of Mr Gove's brief is to introduce so-called 'free' schools - an experiment that failed in Sweden - and those same companies will get a contract with Conservatives education mass education policies?



Private schools in UK appear to do very well. Why doesn't Mr Gove and the whole Conservative Education Departments enact and introduce Private Schools policies?



It's about time that Mr Clegg got involved with this issue and pushed State schooling to follow Private school models of education - or does Mr Clegg not believe children will respond or, perhaps, deserve the model he benefited from?

Personally I don't have a problem with trusting scientists generally, despite the occasional occurrence of a desperate fame/funding seeker (usually a has-been|.



The appalling science coverage in the media is a lot worse (icluding the BBC) with sloppy reporting, incorrect para-phrasing, dumbing down and obvious misunderstanding of the topic. It's only matched by the (seemingly increasing) number of people that fail to spot the errors.



With respect to the many posts on here regarding manmade climate change, it always amazes me the number of people who dismiss what scientists say, quoting "The earth has gone through lots of climate changes in the past" etc. Erm... don't they only know this because of scientists?

I watch or listen to most science programmes on TV and radio and I thought the Reith lecture this morning was very uninspiring. It was a bit like Tate Modern where anything will do.



Take the fact that scientists believe that evidence suggests that the universe started with a big bang and it is still expanding. According to mathematical calculations, there is not enough matter distributed throughout the universe to explain that, so they invent dark matter to explain that and now say it exists. On TV yesterday, Professor Jim Al-Khalili talked of a temperature (I think he said) of billions of degrees to be necessary for the fusion of hydrogen into helium. Has anyone ever produced that kind of temperature?



On a more mundane level, take, for example, that people who sleep for seven hours or more a day are 29% less likely to have high cholesterol. In fact I made that up but it is typical of what you often read. Had it been found true of a sample of say 1000, then you are as likely as not for this to be stated as a fact, when it is only a statistical accident. Cause and effect are nothing to do with it.



I think there is so much nonsense and the pity is it reduces science to theoretical gymnastics and the failure to differentiate between that and real science. A bit like Tate Modern, where anything goes. They will be exhibiting pickled professors of science next.

I come from a generation which trusted exactly what we were told at school and by the Media. Which has since been proven in far too many instances to be entirely false, but who can say that the contradictions are not themselves false.

It is for these reasons that no science should be regarded as absolute fact, it is right that contra opinions should be offered via the media to an increasingly dumbed down public.

I do not believe there are really any ''genuine facts'' just current guesswork and arrogance.

We live in a world in which anything is possible, believe any different and your'e probably a scientist, or economist.

Who can you trust in science?

Science is not about trust or truth - it's about perspectives. We can never know the truth. The only thing we can ever know is that we know nothing. All science provides is theories, or perspectives. It is by combining these perspectives that we gain information about the world. As biological organisms, such information assists us in the world in the form of equipment and enables us to survive and reproduce and impart such information to our offspring. It could be considered as knowledge, but it is certainly not truth. Therefore, science, although useful, is of limited importance with respect to truth.

Does this mean we should trust it? In as much as we can trust any tool.

Nowadays if possible I check the background and CV of the Scientist concerned, if he does'nt appear too bright, (ie Dawkins), I move on.

I only trust Science, and even then, I only absolutely believe it when the results are quantifyable and not correlative, when the results are repeatable and corroborative.



There is no bias is scientific fact.





Politics, Religion, Witchcraft, Astrology, whatever. However these explain it, there is always an agenda to be served.



There is no fact in political, or religious bias.

I am more than a little relieved at the high level of doubt from the commentators here. I spent my whole career in Information Technology and was totally disillusioned at what passed for acceptable in business systems, including those in blue chip companies. I worked for a few.



The problem is that IT should have been called Misinformation Technology and the Internet called the Web of Lies. There is so much rubbish out there that you need a PhD in Scepticism to be able to differentiate between what is real and unreal.



Of course, reality is a philosophical notion and I studied that at Uni as well as pure mathematics. I hated the latter because it was ultra abstract. I discovered later it was all about set theory, moving around and manipulating data as computers do.



So "Brave New World" it most certainly is. Oh well, only another 4 billion years of this at most for mankind to endure until the sun reaches the end of its life. I, luckily, have a little less.

I look to the tried and tested spiritual philosophies for a perspective on truth. They have been around for a long time. I also rate first hand experience and introspection coupled with some time spent on google trying to personally research topics and ideas.



When it comes to science, as far as I can tell, physics is evolving into a new subject that departs from "truths" asserted by previous generations. It may turn out that as much as 100 to 150 years of "truth" is going to have to be revisited and re-worked out, and that is going to affect many many things. Until that time comes, and is announced in the media, we will have to make do with what is pushed at us through our educational and media organisations. Not many people are actually working at the cutting edge. Most people are just repeating what they have been told. Generation after generation of repetition hardening our worldview into a dogma. Media scientists pushing their dogma through the TV pulpit. Take a look at this link, its is a good start at describing this situation :



[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]



When new science emerges it will include an understanding of holism, consciousness and connectedness. This will give us our sense of meaning back, don't believe anyone who tries to tell you that you are a chance evolutionary phenomenon in a random meaningless universe. Thats a very destructive thought pattern that attempts to stop personal growth. Evolution is fine, but it is a very beautiful and ordered process. :)



Trust your own intuition. We are moving towards the birth of a new worldview, scientific and personal worldviews that complement each other. Its difficult because what has been built up is trying to defend itself, this is why we see more and more scientism on the TV, telling us how great scientific materialism is and how silly everything else is. In the end, new science will also have to fight through this dogma but will succeed because it is based on evidence and data, real science.



Big players in this existing worldview will also have to change, for example, the world "health" or pharmaceutical industry will need to revise how it goes about things, as this will be greatly affected by new science. Intention and positive thinking are free. Holistic practice and meditation are free ... not good business models for the pharma-chems who resist the slightest notion of alternative healthcare and lobby governments to legislate against them, or make life hard work for these movements.

25. At 11:40am on 01 Jun 2010, rireed3 wrote:



Trust? The trouble is with all the ways we get bad information about science.



Scientists themselves have, over many years organised the peer-review system, by which expensive journals publish technical papers that must be approved by a review board that understands the research and the factual rigor appropriate to the article.



By contrast, the popular press and politicians are constrained by the principles of free speech to include _anything_ that doesn't break laws or incite others to do so. For them truth is a hoped-for side effect!



If you are interested in an area of research, as maybe to decide its future confirmations or corrections -- very risky always --, you must even more than usual take the popular press -- all of it -- with a grain of salt. Make the press's unreliable pronouncements an incentive to learn enough about the subject and pony up the money to read the journals on the subject.



Short of plowing through articles in individual journals, the (expensive) magazines Nature and Science collect journal articles on various subjects and do reviews of recent findings and debates.



It's easy to say this process, like any other human one, is corrupt, but it bears closer examination than those of business, the popular press and politicians.



---------------------------------------



Yes, it is a hard course because much science is deep and accumulated after many years of work, but looking over the original papers and reviews is the only way. The press ALWAYS misrepresent or dumb down every topic.

Who can you trust in science?



What does The Royal Society's motto say on the subject? ’Nullius in verba’ ≈ 'Take nobody's word for it.'

Just look at the anti drug laws in this country that should tell you enough, the scientists all state cannabis is less harmful than most other substances.

Yet its banned, alcohol kills more people in a week than cannabis has in 10,000 years so no i do not trust a politician.

38. At 1:52pm on 01 Jun 2010, exlabour wrote:



I wouldn't trust politicians as a matter of course but scientists are not exactly squeaky clean. What happened to Immanuel Velikovsky and his supporters? What came of Tesla's theories and experiements?



-----------------------------------------------

Nikola Tsla's theories and experiments led to a"second" industrial revolution powered by electricity. His patents form the basis for commercial generation of alternating current and its transformation as well as polyphase current.

He demonstrated wireless communication and was the greatest electrical engineer of his age. He died in poverty at 86. The System International unit of magnetic flux is named after him, the Tesla. That's what became of Tesla's work.



As for Velikovski and his supporters, they were all abducted by aliens and taken back in time to ancient Egypt where they were sadly slaughtered by the Hyksos thus doing us all a favour.

"55. At 6:30pm on 01 Jun 2010, justin de shed wrote:



Nowadays if possible I check the background and CV of the Scientist concerned, if he does'nt appear too bright, (ie Dawkins), I move on."



Dear Mr de shed, can you explain on what basis you are able to judge the merits, or otherwise, of Richard Dawkins background and CV?



Or maybe you are just displaying your prejudices and ignorance....

The scientists are liers, media are very manipulative and master of spin, the politicians are pen robbers, who lie to get our votes but do things we did not ask them to do. I will rather believe in what I see with my eyes, and remember the stories of weather left by my forefathers. The Yorubas belief in ever changing world, that will end for another to start. There is 'opin aye' meaning end of world. There is 'aye tuntun' a new world. There are stories of many past worlds.

63. At 9:23pm on 01 Jun 2010, Stevem65 wrote:

"55. At 6:30pm on 01 Jun 2010, justin de shed wrote:



Nowadays if possible I check the background and CV of the Scientist concerned, if he does'nt appear too bright, (ie Dawkins), I move on."



Dear Mr de shed, can you explain on what basis you are able to judge the merits, or otherwise, of Richard Dawkins background and CV?



Or maybe you are just displaying your prejudices and ignorance....

------------------------------------



I endorse Justin de Shed. I have heard Richard Dawkins lecture. He was not, in my view, forthcoming when questioned on modern developments in the study of natural selection including evidence for 'mutation engines' and saltatory evolution.

There were, however, large piles of his latest book for sale, passages from which were quoted during the lecture.

Scientists are supposed to be impartial in their research, sadly sometimes you have to wonder if there isn't a more selfish motivation behind some of their conclusions, not aimed at all scientists.



I always thought a very good example was with psychologists and self help products where you get pop psychologists and so called experts who pen heavily marketed and questionable material as absolute fact but obviously choose to ignore the experiences and perceptions of other people. Sadly in the process causing a lot of confusion among the mental health patients who will probably use that material and devaluating a lot of very good, impartial research.



OK maybe not the best example but it's what springs into my mind.

One of the most integral and vital aspects of science is that one must never believe in anything it says! Science never ends and never comes up with a final answer, so if you believe a scientist you can never be one yourself and if you believe a politician then you probably have dementia.

Science, for the most part, is pretty much a case of 'best guess'. I don't necessarily believe everything that the scientists say, but it's not because I don't trust them - it's because I know I'm almost certainly going to hear a different scientist say the exact opposite within a week or two anyway.

By the time that vested interests in the form of backing, academic reputation, political agenda and personal brownie-point scoring are all taken into consideration, whatever a scientist tells us is only true when standing in one of those corners.

We have been misdirected so may times because someone wanted to become a bilionaire, that I don't believe any of them.

Woe betide you if you attempt to do things scientifically today even in so called industry you will be chastised as being non commercial.

Wake up people, the Goths are already inside the gate and have almost destroyed the infrastructure and skills which built your modern world. You the public have actually encouraged the dismantling of the national science and technology base. It is now way too small to sustain the economy.

I believe that all scientists are human and therfore fallable.



What they believe to be true may not be true but may have some factual evidence that could lead to a theoretical conclusion, but that in no way means that their conclusions are right.



Sadly, most of them do.



I don't trust scientists they have been wrong many many times, they will be wrong again. I trust to common sense and practical judgement.



Does Global Warming exist? Yes - Is it man made? No - Is it being influenced by man? probably speeding up the inevitable, so yes - Is it being manipulated by scientists and politicians? Absolutely



Of course thats only a theory

Some science is credible, many others I treat with kid gloves.



When the "2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference" was held in Bali, with many thousands of people from 180 countries attending for a two week conference, I couldn't help but laugh.



Don't these scientists and representatives realise the amount of fossil fuels the planes will burn just to deliver them for their holiday... sorry, meeting!



Many scientists tell you what they want you to believe, and has been proven with climate data, this can very easily be fudged to make things appear worse than they seem.



It's probably true that we are doing some damage to the atmosphere, but for millions of years, the earth has warmed and cooled, we have had ice ages, mini ice ages, heatwaves etc etc.



All these scientists want to do is keep themselves in a job, no matter what truths, half truths, or even make belief they want to tell you. Government and business funding keeps them in their labs for a few more years whilst they think up new ways to frighten or enlighten us.



I'd personally like to see an end to scientists (at universities) that receive funding for researcing the best way to cook an egg or telling us what we already know. It's absurd that they receive funding for this.

Science is a matter of consensus, which is arrived at after many years of argument and counter-argument. Things we should mistrust are 'snap' judgments, papers that have not undergone many years of extensive peer review and - obviously - theory that disagrees with experiment.



Eventually we can establish some sort of prevailing opinion that stands up to experimental testing.



But it's usually just a process of constant refinement such as Einstein refining Newtonian physics and quantum randomness overturning the idea of a deterministic reality.

68. At 11:50pm on 01 Jun 2010, James Hardaker wrote:

"I don't necessarily believe everything that the scientists say, but it's not because I don't trust them - it's because I know I'm almost certainly going to hear a different scientist say the exact opposite within a week or two anyway."



That's the fault of science reporting not of the science, as someone very elequantly put earlier, if one week scientists decide that a glass of wine of good for the heart - the headline will read "Alcohol is good for you", if the next week someone publishes that alcohol is bad for the liver the headline will read "Alcohol is bad for you", hence the reporting suggests a contradiction whereas the science itself does not.



It is a sad state of afairs when people become wary of all scientists, without the scientists we would have none of the technology that we take for granted.

Regrettably, in common with the majority of scientists, Professor Rees is seriously misinformed in regard to 'cold fusion'. The point that many have not taken on board is the fact that experiments involving materials can be very sensitive to the conditions of the experiment, and thus are hard to reproduce. Under such circumstances, failure to reproduce a result does not mean that the original experiment was wrong, and in fact quite a number of experimenters did reproduce the excess heat observation of Fleischmann and Pons. Admittedly a consensus did arise that the experiments had been wrong, but this was the result of 'armchair science' based on preconceived beliefs, vested interests, etc., and not a fully objective process.



I have to assume from what he said in his lecture that Lord Rees is unaware of the fact that around 100 scientists are currently working in this field, that many positive results have been published in reputable journals, and that funding sources include organisations such as the US Department of Defense and the Italian Physical Society. What this episode shows is not the 'self-correcting' processes of science, but rather the distorting effects on science of preconceived beliefs.

7. At 10:16am on 01 Jun 2010, Nietzschean_Acolyte wrote:

Who can you trust in science?

Science is not about trust or truth - it's about perspectives. We can never know the truth. The only thing we can ever know is that we know nothing. All science provides is theories, or perspectives. It is by combining these perspectives that we gain information about the world. As biological organisms, such information assists us in the world in the form of equipment and enables us to survive and reproduce and impart such information to our offspring. It could be considered as knowledge, but it is certainly not truth. Therefore, science, although useful, is of limited importance with respect to truth. Does this mean we should trust it?



Wait so the world being round is a myth? and elements are fairy stories, get real, Science leads to facts!

I have continued to read further comments and I have noted that they find some science programmes are not technical enough. This is not the fault of physicists like myself it is the fault of media types who have decided that the general public are not capable of understanding a bit of simple maths or difficult concepts. They also often use theoretical physicists who wander off into their own personal wonderland, very little of which has an experimental verification, because they think this is more entertaining than some dry discourse on the nitty-gritty of an experiment.



A quick note to those who wished they had done physics at school or university remember there is the OU, Birkbeck college and many good evening courses where you can learn more.

Certainly not the government!

Newspapers' reporting of science is chronically poor.



Every headline is either "such and such is a miracle cure" or "everyday activity can kill you". There is no differentiation between large peer reviewed studies that produce reliable and repeatable results, and early conference papers that, statistically speaking, don't show anything at all.



In an attempt to provide "balance", scientists on the fringes are portrayed as mavericks fighting the establishment: E.g. Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine or Chris Malyszewicz and MRSA. Channel 4 showed a 1 hour documentary on global warming, then showed 1 hour of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - Real balance would have been flashing a 30s slide at the end of the first program saying that a handful of wackjobs and fruitloops think its all about the sun, but their views have been almost thoroughly discredited.



With genuine advances getting lost among the constantly contradicting headlines, the public loses faith in the scientific community and we get left with Homeopaths, chiropractics and religion to explain all our ills.



I once was asked to appear in a photo for a national newspaper that was describing my research. "Can we get you in a white coat and some goggles?" the lady asked. "Otherwise people won't know that its science..."

55. At 6:30pm on 01 Jun 2010, justin de shed wrote:



Nowadays if possible I check the background and CV of the Scientist concerned, if he does'nt appear too bright, (ie Dawkins), I move on.



------------------------



I will assume (based on what I have seen before) that you are a believer of a religion or someone close to you was offended by his book reaching out toward the athiests. Do correct me if I am wrong and state your reason for the dislike.



I find it similar to the following post-



#51

"With respect to the many posts on here regarding manmade climate change, it always amazes me the number of people who dismiss what scientists say, quoting "The earth has gone through lots of climate changes in the past" etc. Erm... don't they only know this because of scientists?"



This comment stood out to me because this shows the problem of polarising in the MMCC/skeptic debate because both sides are scientists. A number of people are certain that MMCC is true because 'the scientists say so' and I was even told there was concensous on MMCC. The same day german and russian scientists dug up evidence it could be natural!



The skeptics refuse to believe MMCC because the media and gov spread lies and the independant bodys such as IPCC are making mistakes and telling some lies. In a sea of lies its hard to see the truth which the scientists worked so hard to find.



If you stand back and look at the argument from both sides you will see a number of scientists disagree so honestly people are all believing the scientists which ever side they are supporting (ignoring the die hard nutters on both sides).



Back to the dawkins and religion it is a completely different situation because science deals in fact, proof, reality and evidence. Religion is based in superstition, belief, faith and the only evidence is what you are told by other believers. This does not remove the possibility of god but it shows a clear divide where religion and science is incompatible.



Again the media, fueled by a number of religious people, managed to feign offense at dawkins work to stir trouble by christians in the same way a picture of mohammed upsets muslims. Yet when you read the book it is a comfort to athiests and nothing more. The bibles (for most religions) play up belief and label everyone else a heretic, yet a book showing athiests they are not alone and maybe they are not wrong is a problem for christians. The funny part is that few religious of other faiths are too bothered.



I applaud dawkins for making his work available for the public in a readable manor. Scientists should be expressing their views because the media is not relaying it very well

When so much in life is a matter of expedience, of selling out to the highest bidder, of dressing up "findings" to suit, of "peers supporting peers" academically, politically or financially, then what "science" is left?



Is there really a line that divides good and bad science?

#80 in_the_uk



"Yet when you read the book [Dawkins - the God Delusion] it is a comfort to athiests and nothing more."



I am sure you will find that Dawkins was just "comforting" himself.

Science and it's importance has been undermined by populist attitudes such as asking "who can you trust in science?"



It presupposes that science is a series of yes/no answers to the world, rather than the rich, complicated exploration that it really is.



Our society is plagued by a media who infect scientific opinion with the "informed words" of meaningless celebrities and a proliferation of pseudo-science generated by the advertisers and supported by the media who want the income.



I am a growing believer in the Sense About Science group who are desperately trying to restore some semblance of balance, especially working with new scientists and students. We need more groups like this, making science popular and commercial, trendy and important and leave controversies to proper debate and not conspiracy theorists!



Oh, and bring back Tomorrow's World - when you through that away, you lost a most important strand in broadcasting.

81. At 09:44am on 02 Jun 2010, Daisy Chained wrote:



When so much in life is a matter of expedience, of selling out to the highest bidder, of dressing up "findings" to suit, of "peers supporting peers" academically, politically or financially, then what "science" is left?



Is there really a line that divides good and bad science?



------------------------------------



Personally I would say the line is transparency. If the research, methods and data is available it should allow the results to be reproducable. This way the skeptics can try it themselves and prove it right or wrong. This is why there was a lot of problems with MMCC, the IPCC and the climategate incident. When data is deleted, concealed and kept away from scrutany there can be no validation and it becomes religion. Because there is only faith that the results are right as no proof is made available.



In response to comment #82-



I found it comforting and I can see how it would have a greater emotional impact on athiests surrounded by religion and sometimes attacked by it than the rest of us. I have been the target of believers with emotional blackmail and still do occasionally to a point (my partners parents are believers but the kids are resisting). While religious people take comfort in their bibles, the athiest can take comfort in the knowledge that their thoughts and feelings are not unique. They are not alone or wrong. And others are in their situation too. A simple book brings people together.

the 'scientific' evidence regarding the cause of BSE in cattle was accepted as correct. However there was another theory put forward by Mark Purdey, now sadly dead that the cause could have come from chemicals such as those in dressings for warble fly treatment.

As far as I am aware this theory was never given any investigation, why?

Even good science is only ever 'prevailing opinion'. Good science provides the closest thing to 'truth' that we can have at that moment, but we must always accept that such truths are likely to be superceded one day.



There's nothing wrong with that of course. It's still a worthy task to find a truth even if we accept that it's only a temporary one.



One of the key points about 'good' science is that it's falsifiable. It makes predictions that can then be tested and if they're found to be false the science is either wrong or incomplete.



The science that says the sun rises in the east stands true so long as the sun doesn't one day rise in the west. Einstein's predictions about how general relativity will mean the apparent position of stars seen during an eclipse will demonstrate the bending of light is another good example. It was something that could be tested and was later found to be true.



All good science needs to make predictions that can be tested.



Science such as MMGW is quite imprecise. The latest prediction from the IPCC suggest that the Earth will warm by 1.1 to 6.4 °C in the 21st century. That is a huge variation. In order to overcome scepticism about MMGW the science needs to get much more precise. There needs to be predictions along the lines: if man's carbon output is x between now and 2020 (or 2030 or 2040 or whatever) then the Earth will be y degrees warmer (within a more precise range than 1.1 to 6.4 °C!).



The IPCC may say that precise predictions are impossible because one can't model all the climate inputs accurately enough to isolate man's CO2 output and predict its contribution to climate change, but that's exactly why the scepticism is there in the first place.



(Just for the record, so you know where I stand, I expect MMGW is a contributory factor to climate change, although I'm yet to be convinced as to how much of a factor it is. Furthermore, I can't see many of the carbon reduction plans being particularly successful while the population continues to rise at the current rate. It seems to me that any per-capita reductions in CO2 emissions will be negated by vast increases in the 'capita' itself, particularly given that a lot of the increases will be in 3rd world countries that will need to produce CO2 to industrialise).

81. At 09:44am on 02 Jun 2010, Daisy Chained wrote:

'When so much in life is a matter of expedience, of selling out to the highest bidder, of dressing up "findings" to suit, of "peers supporting peers" academically, politically or financially, then what "science" is left?



Is there really a line that divides good and bad science?'



No, there is no clear dividing line but public grant money in the UK is so difficult to obtain that the standard of research projects and of the scientists proposing them is world class. The STANDING of the applicant is not so important. Sir Harold Kroto was informed on the same day that he had won a Nobel prize and also that his latest research grant application had been rejected.



Scientists do not remain at the top of their profession by indulging in the vices you outline. Only complete integrity and research of the highest quality will ensure that. As an example I direct you to the highly respected scientist who has posted above who makes an interesting and genuinely authoritative observation.

75. At 09:10am on 02 Jun 2010, Brian Josephson wrote:

#84 in_the_uk



"Transparency"



Is that the "political" or "scientific" version of the definition, or, as I may be drawn to believe, are they the same?



There is an interesting omission in some of the anthropogenic data in that the Earth is leaning ever so slightly differently in its inclination to the plane of its orbit. "Guess" work suggests the lean is a long natural cycle unlikely to have happened for a long, long time. But there again the "guesses" may be wrong. Is the Earth compensating for an unseen force? Is it leaning because its belly makes it do so? Is it a natural cycle? Is it leaning because there are far too many people living on one side? (I am teasing of course; just to point out how little we really do know.)



Dawkins gets "comfort" probably because he sells a lot of books "comforting" others. Personally I have long grown out of an age when any one book did anything at all for me - unless it is fiction. And, in case you are wondering, no, I do not include the Bible as fiction. It is a readable work but that is all it is. Add it to your tools it'll do you good in_the_uk; "comfort" is within NOT without.

76. At 09:25am on 02 Jun 2010, D wrote:

7. At 10:16am on 01 Jun 2010, Nietzschean_Acolyte wrote:

Who can you trust in science?

Science is not about trust or truth - it's about perspectives. We can never know the truth. The only thing we can ever know is that we know nothing. All science provides is theories, or perspectives. It is by combining these perspectives that we gain information about the world. As biological organisms, such information assists us in the world in the form of equipment and enables us to survive and reproduce and impart such information to our offspring. It could be considered as knowledge, but it is certainly not truth. Therefore, science, although useful, is of limited importance with respect to truth. Does this mean we should trust it?



Wait so the world being round is a myth? and elements are fairy stories, get real, Science leads to facts!



Facts are not the same as truths. Facts are merely induction-based tools.

What a cynical view of scientists some of you have! You have, unfortunately, been duped by the popular press and the government, who ceaselessly attempt to dredge up scare-stories and dirt on what are really somewhat media-UNsavvy researchers. They do this in an attempt to cover up their own inability to understand the scientific concepts with which they are presented.



Look at what has happened to the apparently highly-respected academics involved in reviewing drug classifications (advice ignored and his opinion openly criticised by the government until he resigned), climate change research (reputation marred by know-nothings because one of his PRIVATE emails was hacked and then taken completely out of context), and weapons of mass destruction (committed suicide).



I am a scientist, and neither I nor any of my colleagues would permit a government official or a commercial body to 'buy' us. Our research funding proposals are written with the following criteria in mind:

1) The science has to be GOOD science (this is the cardinal rule)!

2) The topic has to be within the area of expertise of the researcher (i.e. you CAN'T propose to do something 'just for the funding' if you have no expertise in it - you simply won't get funded)

3) The research should result in a significant increase in our knowledge about a particular topic, or in a product that is of benefit in the field of interest.



Yes, we do keep our fingers on the pulse of what the funding bodies are looking for, but not to the point of misrepresenting ourselves or the hypotheses that we want to test!



As others on this blog have stated, if you want the truth of what a scientist has said, DON'T rely on what is said by journalists (proper science journalists excepted), or by government ministers (most of them have not read anything beyond the press releases and executive summaries). They try to boil things down to a few tasty sound bites, and in doing so typically miss important details and caveats that only a read of the ACTUAL published work, or a conversation with the ACTUAL scientist who did the work, will clarify.



If you have read the ACTUAL published work, or had a conversation with the ACTUAL scientist who did the work, and you don't understand the concepts and findings, then you are NOT in a position to criticise that research. Similarly, if you are ranting on about some scientific finding simply because the press is doing it, then stop, think, and maybe try to find out the WHOLE story before continuing.

Sciences and scientists are not all the same – there is a continuum of quality and credibility. Hard sciences like physics and chemistry are at the highest level, while other sciences like diet and health research and climate science are lower down.



At the lowest levels it is difficult to distinguish between what a scientists knows to be true, what he thinks might be true and what he wishes to be true.



Where science interfaces with politics – the scientists often become like politicians and lobbyist themselves. When, as is the case with climate change, a scientific issue gets conflated with an ideology people of an idealistic temperament are attracted to the field and become not much more than activists in white coats.



As I have commented before fields like climate science and diet and health research aren’t exactly up there with Einstein and E=MC2.

It is a sad state of affairs that they even have to ask "who do you trust with science, media, politicians or scientists?" Surely the answer has to be scientists seeing as it's their profession.

It's like asking, "who you you trust with your plumbing; a chef, a gardener or a plumber?"

Sigh. So, a debate about the nature of science immediately becomes a platform for numerous google experts who know that global warming is a sinister international conspiracy by evil scientists getting rich because they read it on the internet - the fount of all knowledge and so full of psuedoscientific rubbish it should come with a health warning. We are entering a new dark age, it seems, where the 'have your say' generation believe that ill informed opinion trumps evidence and that anecdote is as valid as properly conducted research. If these people had had their way in the past, then we would still be living in the stone age and dying of preventable diseases, just what the anti-vaccination crowd is attempting to achieve in the 21st Century.



Can I applaud James T Kirk (and others) thoughtful posts on here that attempt to rationally outline the way that science works. It makes a nice change from the predictable rantings of the tin foil hat brigade who are drawn to any internet based scientific debate like wasps to a jamjar - and delight in trumpeting their ignorance like it was something to be proud of. It isn't; just because you can't understand something, it doesn't make it wrong.

To 88. Daisy Chained





""Transparency"



Is that the "political" or "scientific" version of the definition, or, as I may be drawn to believe, are they the same?



There is an interesting omission in some of the anthropogenic data in that the Earth is leaning ever so slightly differently in its inclination to the plane of its orbit. "Guess" work suggests the lean is a long natural cycle unlikely to have happened for a long, long time. But there again the "guesses" may be wrong. Is the Earth compensating for an unseen force? Is it leaning because its belly makes it do so? Is it a natural cycle? Is it leaning because there are far too many people living on one side? (I am teasing of course; just to point out how little we really do know.)"



There are many omissions in the CC data which are often seen insignificant by the MMCC pro lobby yet offer greater gains or show other possibilities. All is science and all needs looking at. This is why I dont support the skeptic or the believer because scientists cant agree on MMCC. They agree with physics but its a giant leap to assume they all believe MMCC as the theory is (you rightly point out). All of it needs to be open to scrutany which allows us to find the truth. Omissions do not help science but they do promote the desired result as the gov proves with creative statistics.



"Dawkins gets "comfort" probably because he sells a lot of books "comforting" others. Personally I have long grown out of an age when any one book did anything at all for me - unless it is fiction. And, in case you are wondering, no, I do not include the Bible as fiction. It is a readable work but that is all it is. Add it to your tools it'll do you good in_the_uk; "comfort" is within NOT without."



I would assume Dawkins gets comfort from selling his books. It validates his work in the way that people want to read the book for whatever reason. Comfort is an emotional system which is prayed on by the salesman, religious and others who would take advantage. Religious take comfort in their book with tales of god and angels watching them. Athiests go through persecution and hatred at the hands of some religious and religions so any link to other like minded people is a comfort.



I found it comforting that I am not the only one who questions religion in such specific ways which have yet to be answered.

The original Theory of global warming goes back to Joseph Fourier in 1824, long before publication of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Max Planck's Qhatum Theory. The first experiments on greenhouse gases were carried out by John Tyndall in 1858 and the quantitative measurements of the greenhouse gas effect were carried out by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.



various scientists in the first half of the 20th century proposed that feedback mechanisms such as the melting of ice sheets and increased water vapour could exaggerate small amouts of warming or cooling. The first mathematical model of the atmosphere was constructed by Rossby in 1942. The first calculations on the possible serious effect of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was made by Moller in 1963. Several models proposed in the 1960s suggested feedback mechanisms could create catastrophic global warming.



Budyko in the mid 1960's put together the first attempts at a global temperature set and noted the cooling effect of dust particles from volcanos. He also thought that melting of sea ice could increase the warming effect and produce temperatures that would be very serious for higher life forms while a small cooling effect could lead to an increase in glaciation and even greater cooling.

many of these early attempts at modelling the climate using very few physical processes produced unstable results and predicted possibly catastrophic outcomes.



Faster computers in the 1970s made it possible to build computer models that for the first time could incorporate all the elements affecting climate. James Hansen's group produced some of the first computer models that were able to produce realistic results that matched observations.

During the 1980s more data was collected about past ice ages and paleontological records. Scientists then realised that the warming experienced in the 20th century far exceeded anything observed in the previous 400 years.



Measurements from ice cores showed the slow changes in atmospheric levels of CO2 during previous ice ages and interglacials and also showed that CO2 levels in the 20th century were rising much faster than during earlier periods. By the early 1990s satellites were making accurate measurements of global surface temperatures. Many computer models were constructed, some simple models considered specific aspects of the problem other very complex models tried to include everything in an all compassing model.



Eventually scientists believed that had enough data and sufficient understanding to conclude that global warming was occurring and a few years later they concluded that human activity was a major cause of the 20th century warming. However when they then proposed that action needed to be taken to reduce our CO2 output the fossil fuel industry saw it as a threat to their future business and started to pour money into PR companies to try and discredit the science and the scientists and to delay any action that might affect their business.



Scientists will continue to research more aspects of the problem and refine their understanding but the issue is now more political than scientific. Will action taken with sufficient urgency to avoid triggering the positive feedback mechanisms that the scientists fear or is politics at the global level too poorly developed to cope with such a major effort?

#90 Val



Hi Val. So let me get this right.



"You are a "good scientist"." Fine, no problem with that.



"You will not allow yourself to be "sold off", but you do keep an eye of the "funding pulse"." Well the first is an axiom, so why the rider?



"People are persuaded by "irresponsible" journalists." Very true. And what about the scientists who write books (to sell) or make media programs (to sell) or talk to journalists (to sell their ideas and attract funding).



"People who do not understand the science shouldn't comment about it." And that is where we come into this topic, and, according to your comment, leave just as rapidly. Closed shop anyone?



#94 in_the_uk



"I found it comforting that I am not the only one who questions religion in such specific ways which have yet to be answered."



Well you shouldn't in_the_uk. You should make up your own mind and KNOW why you feel the way you do. Dawkins and co are not going to be around after you are dead; make use of your time to understand as much about human NATURE as you can. Don't believe everything professors tell you; even they have mouths to feed.

This is a hugely complex issue - but it is certainly not a new issue. Whether we are much more enlightened than we were 200 years ago when we had ideas such as luminiferousaether depends on how much we have yet to learn. I think there is a long way to go - science is an endless journey and not a destination.



What HAS changed is the influence of the media which portrays constantly theories as facts. Joe public does not, in general, understand how 'science' works. In essence, theories are just hypothetical models which may be supported by observation. Observation increases confidence in the correctness of theory; they may never be proved as 'fact' but counter observations can disprove theories.



When does a theory become fact - these days it seems it is when the newspapers get hold of it. How we much rely on theories is usually down to (scientist) interpretations - and statistics. Most of us aren't equipped to judge. The way scientists behave has parallels with religion - some have more faith than others in specific theories. Perhaps global warming is a good example. There is uncertainty in the climate models - on balance the evidence faviours man-made influence but there is some counter-evidence - and other ways of interpreting evidence.



Herin lies a huge risk. For example, synthetic life COULD be extremely harmful; genetically modified crops COULD be devastating to nature. The scientists tell us that the risks are very low. A risk analyst would argue that the LIKELIHOOD of harm is low but the IMPACT is extreme. This is a very different assessment of risk and we should take perhaps more notice. However, genetic engineering and synthetic life are the cash cows of pharmaceuticles industry and these guys have influence over eager scientists and our Government. Is the oversight adequate? IMHO - usually it is not. Do we actually know what is happening behind closed laboratory doors?



Dawkins name raises the question of God vs Science. Are scientists 'playing god'? Is our science contrary to god and religion? I do not think so. As an atheist I can see no evidence whatsoever in science that either proves or disproves the existence of God. In fact as Science digs deeper we learn more about just how little we do not understand and it is humbling. Will we ever explain the Big Bang? Some people see BB as an altenative truth to Genesis, others see it as the very story of Genesis... and then there was light! Whatever your beliefs - its out there to be discovered (unless, of course, you see uncovering the secrets of nature as another bite of the Apple and furher loss of our innocence).

96. At 11:24am on 02 Jun 2010, Daisy Chained wrote:



#94 in_the_uk



"I found it comforting that I am not the only one who questions religion in such specific ways which have yet to be answered."



Well you shouldn't in_the_uk. You should make up your own mind and KNOW why you feel the way you do. Dawkins and co are not going to be around after you are dead; make use of your time to understand as much about human NATURE as you can. Don't believe everything professors tell you; even they have mouths to feed.



-----------------------------------



I never said he changed my mind, I said it was nice to see someone else question religion as I have. I have always asked questions and wanted the truth, something yet to be presented by a religion. It is nice that dawkins wrote a book to support the athiests as the religious preachers refer people to their book. Basicly when a religious preacher asks you to look at the bible to find jesus, you can ask them to read the god delusion to find some truth.



I am glad dawkins wrote his books to engage the public in science. Some people will reject it because it doesnt say what they want. One of the books released to 'answer' dawkins was a rediculous joke. I only got half way and was insulted by each page of lie and twisted words that I had to put it down. Yet without the book by dawkins we could be convinced, by the media, that he is attacking religion. Yet in truth he is presenting the questions and facts accepted by most athiests.



Third parties will always selectively release information

Do I trust scientists? Well, on the whole, the better educated and informed a person is about a subject, the more likely they are to be right.



Anyone thinking otherwise is either the most dangerous kind of idiot (one who thinks he's clever) or is someone with issues of self-esteem, who cannot admit others may be more intelligent (or, very often, hasn't got over the fact that he found science hard at school).

95. At 11:24am on 02 Jun 2010, Tom Bombadil wrote:



"Eventually scientists believed that had enough data and sufficient understanding to conclude that global warming was occurring and a few years later they concluded that human activity was a major cause of the 20th century warming. However when they then proposed that action needed to be taken to reduce our CO2 output the fossil fuel industry saw it as a threat to their future business and started to pour money into PR companies to try and discredit the science and the scientists and to delay any action that might affect their business.



Scientists will continue to research more aspects of the problem and refine their understanding but the issue is now more political than scientific. Will action taken with sufficient urgency to avoid triggering the positive feedback mechanisms that the scientists fear or is politics at the global level too poorly developed to cope with such a major effort?"



I would like to point out that your statement is that of a religious armogeddon preacher who claims the world is not ready for it etc. The theory of god has existed longer yet we dont all flock to the nearest preacher because most of us would prefer to know about the world, not superstition.



I do not say that MMCC co2 theory is superstition. I will wait for the results before accepting it as fact or fiction. Like I did with the mobile phone and cancer scare, MMR and autism, LHC and black holes etc. The assumption was always the worse case yet never materialised. The science proved the scaremongers wrong.