17 August 2012
Mankind’s Greatest Invention. Do you know what it is??
Posted by Dan Satterfield
It’s the most imprtant thing that anyone should understand about science. It’s in nearly every science text book from grade school to high school (usually at the front but often skipped or downplayed). It made the computer you are reading this on possible and in fact it made all of modern technology possible!
No, it’s not science…It’s SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Do you know what it is, what it means? Do you have a solid understanding of it? Most do not, but it is the single greatest invention made by man. It’s so important that the nation with the greatest number of people who DO undersand it, will always rise to be the leader of the world. ALWAYS.
If you have some vague recollection that I am talking about hypothesis testing, then you’re missing the boat here. It’s MUCH deeper than that, because when you understand scientific method, you will understand completely what Neil de Grasse Tyson is really saying.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS:
At it’s core, it’s a simple set of rules that allows us to separate myth and superstition from reality, and allows us to build knowledge on a foundation of tried and tested fact. In short, scientific knowledge is the sum total of what we can see and test in the universe around us.
Rule One. Any observation or experiment we make must be repeatable. Others must be able to make the same observation or experiment, and get the SAME results. Not just someone you choose, but anyone and everyone should get the same result or make the same observation.
Violate rule one and it is NOT science.
Rule Two. Theories must make verifiable predictions. Any idea on how things work, or what is (or is not) true must be testable and falsifiable. You must be able to do an experiment that COULD possibly prove the idea wrong.
If you cannot do an experiment that could test the idea, and possibly prove it WRONG, then it is NOT Science.
Rule Three.
If an experiment shows a theory is wrong, then it’s wrong. As Richard Feynman said (I paraphrase) “It does not matter how smart your are or how famous you are, if your theory does not fit with experiment, then it’s wrong!” (..and therefore it is NOT science).
Don’t just take my word for it:
What is so fantastic about this method of discovering new things, is that it immediately excludes myth, superstition, and everything that does not work. Your relatives may argue at every holiday gathering whether or not trickle down economics works, but in science if your theory fails experimentally then it’s wrong. Subject closed. (I’ll leave to others the subject of whether or not economics is a science!)
The knowledge and theories that have been tested, and shown to be reliable countless times, are what makes up the science books in schools. After so much knowledge on a subject has been gained, to prove the foundation of a theory wrong becomes an almost insurmountable task. One would have to show that all those experiments that came before were wrong. One simple observation or experiment could do it, but the only ones who expect it to happen are those who for one reason or another cannot accept the foundation in the first place.
I gave a talk about weather and climate change to a group a few years ago and someone came up afterwards and pointedly said “I have a theory and you cannot prove it wrong!” I replied, “you just did”. This is why “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe it”.
It took me several paragraphs to explain this, while Neil de Grasse Tyson did it in one sentence. That’s why I forecast the weather on TV, and he runs the Hayden Planetarium!
But Dan, why do people still get all up in your face and say climate change is an “unproven theory?”
Because the have no idea that science never PROVES anything. Hardly surprising since American students are in the 3rd world category in science education.
” ”I have a theory and you cannot prove it wrong!” I replied, “you just did”.”
That is the pithiest response to that question I have heard. I am going to use it. If the person is really interested though, it leads nicely into a discussion of what is science.
I hope you’ll forgive a minor nitpick on Rule 1 in an excellent post. An experiment that is not repeatable is still science providing it followed the proper methodologies. There are many experiments that have promising leads, but unfortunately further experiments show the “leads” are mistakes, statistical artefacts, etc. This does not mean the original experiment was not science.
Refusal to acknowledge that your experiment is not reproducible though is where the “not science” occurs.
As I said, a nitpick. Its been sitting in my head for a few days, like an itch not going away, so I gave up and scratched it. Sorry, usually I can resist that peculiar obsessive part of my nature.
mankind’s’ greatest invention is formal, standardized language. For the most of obvious reasons- using a nomenclature, syntax and numerology- all forms of development could occur, whether within a primitive or intercultural society.
The greatest invention in history is one that allowed mankind to be able to contrast himself with all other animals. It allowed him to say he was human as oppossed to just another animal. And what was this greatest of all inventions? It was the development of a system in which our sound system, i.e.speech, went from a single language originating via the vocal chords to a dual sound system. The single language system was basic to the survival of all living animals and assisted in the survival of all specie of animal for multi millions of years. The brilliance of the two sound systems was that it was not a case of adding a new set of sounds to the existing one, but instead interweaving it with the old system. It thus provided a coded system, which introduced time as an element where primitive mankind could create sounds to represent the past. present and future occurances Thus it laid the basis for history, for planning for the future as well as the ability to present current events. With the element of time in the new verbal sounding there has been little that can not be urally portrayed and thus mankinds exponential leap in develpment over all other creatures on the earth. Writing became an effort to somehow create a pictoral representing the dual sound system. Development of the book was an attempt to create a permanent record of the writing of the new dual coded sound system.
This coded system left no archalolgic traces for modern scientist to uncover. It’s development had to go in tandem step with mankind’s scienfific progress through the ages.
Awesome
There is an invention more important and fundamental to progress than the scientific method. With out this invention there would be no civilization. Language.
Good blog post.
Tyson is trying to act like an ambassador for science to the unwashed masses. For folks who can’t handle the subtle facts of science maybe a quote like that can hit home but if you understand that science is a pursuit of truth rather than the ultimate achievement of it the quote is a bit off putting. It strikes me as one of the elite deceiving the public “for their own good” which is a terrible slippery slope. We are in a pretty terrible place right now for public understanding of science (with politics being very much intermingled with the general populous’ views of science) and having an attempted ambassador of science like Tyson being caught in a distorted claim of science is something that undermines things further. I’d lump this along with comments like “settled science” or the argument that “scientific consensus” is the mark of a truly mature science (both of which feel like attacks on the intelligence of the public and are an affront to the scientific method by people who believe themselves to be “true believers in science”)