Hamburgers, Brandy, and the Scientific Method

(Uncle Bob's comments below come from an otherwise innocent barbecue in my backyard, where there was a bit of brandy consumed, but no one came to blows. If anyone wishes to liven up an otherwise mundane backyard party, I suggest you invite Uncle Bob over. He never disappoints.)

In the midst of conversing on topics of interest while lubricating ourselves with our genial host’s brandy the other evening, my young friend (also a shirt tail relative) argued that since a scientific viewpoint is based on "faith" in the scientific method it is therefore no more credible or reliable than any other form of belief which may be based on faith, such as in holy scriptures, for example. Faith is faith, in other words.

This old atheist unbeliever leaped to the challenge of refuting this skewed and faulty premise, and the resulting discussion may have been heard several backyards away from our bower in Nephew John’s backyard.

My point, which I reiterated in every way I could think of, was that the scientific method is not based on fact or faith, but on trial and error. There are no “facts” in science, only theories. When a scientist proposes a new theory to explain his/her new view of reality, he/she is immediately challenged by his/her peers, who immediately set out to prove or disprove his/her findings by trying to replicate his/her results. If the results can not be replicated, the whole shebang gets consigned to the junkyard of “scientific” endeavor, such as recently happened when so-called cold fusion of atomic nuclei to produce endless energy could not be replicated anywhere outside the great state of Utah.

If further research validates the new theory, it becomes part of the scientific curriculum, but only as long as it can withstand further tests of its validity. And it is never a “fact.”

The process is called “peer review” and is not a friendly or tidy process. Scientific egos and professional reputations are at stake. As in all human enterprises, errors occur, but continual peer review pressure ensures that eventually all errors will be corrected.

Even with such checks and balances, scientific egos go astray. Native Oregonian Dr. Linus Pauling earned two Nobel prizes, one for Chemistry and one for Peace, but unfortunately is remembered primarily for his adamant and irrational advocacy of Vitamin C as a sure cure for the common cold. Most of his scientific colleagues were mum on the subject, perhaps because challenging the diktats of a Nobel Laureate on a topic of his choice is usually not a good career move.

Many of those folks who rushed out to buy Vitamin C to cure their colds soon decided that eminent scientist Dr. Pauling was a fraud so let's call him a phony and ask our pastor to lay on some hands.

So much for faith, and just as a reminder, a recent poll tells us that most Republicans believe that a Cosmic Supernanny created the entire universe about six thousand years ago, and Republicans are, unfortunaterly, half or more of this nation's true believers in whatever, such as who shall be our next president.


Uncle Bob