Progress that doesn’t go viral
Some recent posts have addressed events in astronomy that have attracted attention from the general public. Our astronomer would like to explain something that you’ll probably never hear about.
Normal science
Articles Tagged with news media
Somone else’s poetry
Why read something you don’t care for?
A minor matter of a subscription raises a point of vital importance.
Science and the long shot
Why new discoveries are over-hyped
We often hear of new scientific results that promise great things, especially in the health field, but then hear no more of them. Most scientific ideas don’t work out. Why, then, do we still hear the hype?
The unnecessary theory
You will have heard of the detection of gravitational waves, just announced this past week. For once the mass media haven’t over-hyped a scientific discovery: this really is an important find. We’re not going to try to explain the science behind it (there are lots of articles on line and offline that do that). It’s the fact of the 100-year gap between the theoretical prediction and the actual observation that tells us something about the nature of science.
“Outside the proper scope”
What you can do, and what you should do
In the Five Colors Science & Technology library of photography are a number of old books that we still find interesting. Apart from details of procedures and chemistry that are hard to find elsewhere, they show the different ideas, through the years, of just what was a good photograph.
The strange case of the dimming star
A good and bad example of current science
Our astronomer begs to be allowed to explain what’s really interesting about KIC8462852.
“I was, like, you know. . .”
A different kind of communication
Our astronomer has often found himself traveling on public transport and occasionally eating alone at crowded restaurants. This means he has overheard many a conversation, unintentionally to be sure (he lacks the gossip gene, or alternatively the instincts of the spy). Many of them have been very irritating to him, and at least he sat down to work out why.
Mythology and cosmology
Our chief consultant writes:
Science is a part of our culture. It’s not just that the products of science are all around us, in our hands and in our lives; no less, the discoveries of scientists are covered in the mainstream news media (not always well) and the concepts widely known (not always accurately). It’s clear enough by comparing our world with that of other cultures, say in the particular case of astronomy. We have cosmology (the Big Bang and all that); the ancient Greeks, a series of stories about gods and Titans.
Studying humans, even as amateurs, one seeks out similarities across cultures, and so we see cosmology equated to cosmic mythology. This leads to assertions like, “Cosmology is only our way of explaining the universe to ourselves, exactly the same way other cultures use other explanations.” This is just true enough to be seriously misleading.
How can you tell, if you’re not an expert?(3)
Dueling PhDs
Our chief consultant writes:
We come to the hardest problem to set a layman: suppose there are two (or more) experts, that is, people who disagree strongly about some scientific or technical question, each of which has some claim to expertise. Call this “dueling PhDs.” You, as a layman, are called upon to decide between them. What do you do?
We assume that the matter is advanced or esoteric enough that there’s no question of you actually checking the math yourself. Also, that it’s not a matter of current research, where the answer really isn’t known. (That excludes, for instance, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose disagreeing about the Nature of Space and Time.)
You could try to evaluate the credentials of either side, working out whose PhD is stronger; or take of vote of scientists working on the matter; or, perhaps, decide on the basis of motivation, asking who is funded by whom. Slightly more useful is analyzing the rhetoric, on the assumption that someone with a poor scientific case is more likely to try to cover it with noise. All of these techniques leave us uneasy, and though we have some suggestions on how to use them we prefer a harder, more time-consuming method as a more reliable way of getting at something like the truth.
How can you tell, if you’re not an expert? (2)
How far can you trust a scientist?
Our chief consultant writes: It’s time to take up the question again of how a non-expert can evaluate an expert. In a previous post I introduced paradoxers, people from outside the field who claim to have made some highly important advance. Paradoxers are interesting in several ways and we’ll return to them later. Today we consider the case of some undoubted expert, a renowned or at least established scientist, describing something in his or her field. How much of it can you rely on to be true? How far can you actually trust a scientist?
This subversive-looking question occurred to our astronomer a while back. To try to answer it, he looked into the specific case of astronomy over the period 1833-1944, and wound up writing a well-regarded book with his conclusions. It’s 300 pages long, so I’m not going to try to include the whole thing in this post. His depressing conclusion is that even the best and most conscientious scientists may make statements as known fact, that turn out later to be wrong. His encouraging conclusion is that this is very rare, and for almost all scientists almost all the time, their presentations are reliable. In addition, there are a number of clues that help indicate the reliability, or otherwise, of what you’re being told.