That is all well and true, if you have the kind of personal integrity that Richard Feynman had -- but for fucks sakes, don't give your kids any illusions: That principle isn't the norm.

The norm is that if you've got a nice pair of tits, and you put out on a regular basis -- whatever your guess is, is probably correct. M'kay?

And if the guess cannot be tested to see if it can be disproven, it is not a scientific theory.

Otherwise science would be clogged with guesses about the supernatural Flying Spaghetti Monster, with legitimate scientific guesses impeded by legends of His Noodly Appendage.

Oh, and that invisible teapot in orbit shoots undetectable gravity rays that makes bees able to fly. The reason so many bees died is because the electromagnetic waves generated by American Idol shows and Paris Hilton interviews are blocking these undetectable gravity rays.

Hey, if you can't see something, that doesn't mean it isn't there, right?

The norm is that if you've got a nice pair of tits

Norm has a nice pair of tits? What are you talking about!?

The norm is that if you've got a nice pair of tits, and you put out on a regular basis -- whatever your guess is, is probably correct. M'kay?

No, but the experiments are worth repeating.

Science does not function like television. Theories aren't given credence based on popularity.

That which does, is not science.

Well la dee dah.

Zack, do you have something to add to this or have you already shot your intellectual wad?

My contribution is a link to Berkley's contribution

Ha, thanks, a rather obscure way to put it. :) Not that I get your point.

Here's a nice article written by one of Feynman's friends:

http://www.longnow.org/views/essays/articles/ArtFeynman.php?dupe=with_honor

What a guy.

Andy.

Not that I get your point.

His point, I believe, is that he thinks philosophical topics are relevant to a discussion regarding science. I submit that they are not.

If Zack wishes to be contrary, I suggest he ignore us, thus causing us to cease to exist. :)

Awesome link, Andy! As a hardcore computer geek myself, I find the article utterly fascinating.

the problem as Natalie Angers in her book "The Canon" puts it, is that people treat a scientific opinion or theory like any political stance. When a person says he does not like pizza or hate Bush, that opinion does not have to have a basis, its just that, an opinion. No proof or evidence necessary. but the question of whether evolution really occurs for example is not a question of opinion, and yet, people confuse the issue anyway and say "I believe the earth is 6K years old, you think its 4.5 billion years old, lets just agree to disagree". And thats dead wrong, but thats just the point, people confuse an opinion with an issue of fact that must be proved up.

Whoo, this turned out to be a long post.

To add to what Susceptor said, I don't think people "get" what a scientific fact actually is. This is a failure of the education system to adequately explain the Scientific Method and get people to employ it themselves, using their own minds. It boils down to people thinking that "nothing can be 100% for sure" and erroneously concluding "all assertions are just opinions, and popularity is the best gauge of correctness", and using this broken logic as a justification for irrational behaviour. Reasoning and science, however, do not and cannot work in that way or in that context. If they did, we would never have become a tool-using species, because we would have never accepted the fact that a pointed stick can puncture a hide as useful information.

Here's how it is: Science attempts to create a logical model that can be used to understand how the world around us works. That an inscrutible deity made the Universe spontaneously work a certain way to trick us, or that reality as we know it is a side effect of consciousness, is completely irrelevant to science. Science works fine without one even knowing of such things.

Scientific models generically reflect how a specific mechanic of the world around us will behave when interacted with. When an experiment goes contrary to the model, the model is changed or discarded. The use of scientific-type reason allows us to use those models to create actual working things like computers and cars and vaccines and agriculture... things that don't just turn up on their own: humans actually have to figure out a model of reality in order to know how electrons and gasoline and DNA and seeds work. The models are successful, because the technology consistently works according to the model once the experimental stage is over.

Unfortunately, people today take technology for granted, thinking that scientific discovery is always someone stumbling upon, or suddenly knowing how to make, a working internal combustion engine or a cancer drug.

This dim assumption about human progress allows people to stay in a more primitive state of mind, where wishful thinking and irrational egocentric worldviews hold sway.

He was a smart guy

I would suggest reading Thomas Kuhn if you want to know how difficult it can be to change even scientist's beliefs, no matter the result of the experiment:

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083

Donna's comment simply shows that scientists are human beings, most of whom can over-ride their instincts most of the time. The point being that when they are not able to be persuaded by the evidence they are not scientists. I recall a quotation from an Indian Scientist who said "when I ask the question 'How?' I am a scientist, when I ask the question 'Why?' I am a Hindu."

A couple of quotations:

"Religion hinges upon faith, politics hinges upon who can tell the most convincing lies or maybe just shout the loudest, but science hinges upon whether its conclusions resemble what actually happens." - Ian Stewart (1945-)

and one I like a lot:

"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988)

Here is a BBC/PBS program on Richard Feynman, "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out".

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+pleasure+of+finding+things+out&search=

You can also buy the DVD,

http://www.sykes.easynet.co.uk/pofto.html

bernarda, cool -- good stuff.

I'm currently reading/re-reading "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out." It's a damn disgrace that the BBC even has to get involved with such a production -- this dude is a national treasure, and deserves a helluva lot more attention than he currently gets.

I picked this book up for free, years ago, at the Miami Herald. It was in a pile of books that were supposed to be reviewed, or had been reviewed -- anyone who wanted to, could just go grab something. I almost caused a scene, cause I got a bit hot under the collar on account of a Feynman book just laying around in a pile along with a lot of garbage. I mean, what the fuck?

Feynman truly was a remarkable man...

Speaking as an English scientist who was raised on Feynman in the 60s and 70s I thank the BBC for attempting to spread the word. If he gets little attention in the US it's because the main US media concentrates on other things - more important things - like religion, Anna Nicole's baby etc. There's only so much space to be filled on a 24 hour News Channel!

NB This is an ironic statement.

@ Frenetic - But I like you people.

....and - the topic of the entry was about guessing and ideas rather than science. I am all for science. I just believe it's a dangerous precedent to claim that a guess is false if it fails an experiment. There are frequent scientific errors.. and to discount and idea entirely because some aspect of it fails a part of the scientific method then you are subscribing the the belief that all that is relevant is the physical world - that the natural laws we have extracted from our limited understanding of the universal are the only truths we should pay mind to.

If the topic sentence was regarding experiments- then philosophy would have no place in the thread, but the purpose was to express an opinion on the invalidity of guessing. People used to believe drowning women to prove they weren't witches was scientific - and in 100 years, soceity will look back upon us and wonder how the fuck we existed without their particular frames of reference they apply to the vastly different atmosphere they will be living in. -z

The topic sentence's significant term (for me) was 'experiment', and experiment is all about scientific investigation. Also, if you have understood the tenor of most of the contributions, they have been about Richard Feynman who was a Physicist, and as another great scientist once said "All science is Physics or stamp collecting" - Ernest Rutherford (1871 - 1937)

All science is Physics or stamp collecting.

Ah yes, those super-reductionists! Science is about construction of theories that are ultimately useful in making predictions about results of experiments or observations. Molecular biologists make such predictions without the use of much physics.

I've no doubt that the laws that govern the behavior of complex biological systems are "physical", but I'd be pretty much deluded if I thought I "understood" much biology by recognizing that fact.

@ pedantsareus - you know - after careful examination - you are right and I am wrong. I figured out what I really don't like about it. The topic sentence IS about experimentation - the concluding sentence JUST DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING OF ANY RELEVANCE TO THE TOPIC OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER. It's just overly presumptuous, but then again - what do I know? That's all there is to it. -z.

@ Zack: "la dee dah"s and sarcastic Wikipedia links aside, I actually think you bring up some interesting and relevant points. Your bit about drowning suspected witches and frames of reference especially.

I think some of us (myself included) have itchy trigger fingers -- we're always waiting for some poor mindfucked creationist to wander in here, and moan at us like a zombie, arms outstretched and hands clawed. ;)

it really wasn't a sarcastic link though...

the truth for me is that Religion fails to answer questions that arise about the nature of our origins/Consciousness, etc.

Science fails to answer questions about the origin of matter/atoms, etc.

it's about finding a happy balance so you're comfortable with not knowing the entirety of everything, but learning enough to gain an appropriate perspective so that your curiosity doesn't drive you insane.

It wasn't the first part about Feynman's quote that I was la-di-daing, it was the 2nd - to claim that "That's all there is to it" is to omit possibilities of scientific error, and research bias... just as Religion doesn't discount Science, Science does not discount Religion.

I enjoy amendments. -z

just as Religion doesn't discount Science, Science does not discount Religion.

I was pretty much with you, up until here. Philosophy is one thing, but Religion tends to be a loaded word, implying, if not describing outright: adherence to ancient scripture, inflexible moral codes divergent from (or irrelevant to) the laws and attitudes of modern society, institutionalization and dogma, and deliberate ignorance.

Plus, Science does "discount" Religion, insofar as it provides things like a comprehensible astronomical system (where the Earth isn't in the center and the constellations aren't a testament to any deities), or proven models of biological functioning that inevitably lead to, and partially confirm, the theory of evolution (where the supernatural wasn't necessary for the origin of species).

And Religion - or at least, the religious institutions who propagate the religion, interpret the scripture, and establish and enforce the dogma - does discount Science, because Science emphatically contradicts large swaths of widely followed scriptural interpretations and Religion, by nature, is often unable to adapt to that. They can't just go in and edit the scriptures (although it is arguable that in previous centuries they have gotten away with this).

These points hold especially true now that Scientists can use their models of the physical world's behavior to assert the staggering improbability of something supernatural operating upon it.

Frenetic: His point, I believe, is that he thinks philosophical topics are relevant to a discussion regarding science. I submit that they are not.

Respectfully, I disagree. Scientific reasoning has a firm philosophical basis and it behooves you to be familiar with it. Feynman certainly was.

In a sense science has become so firmly entrenched in western culture that we take it for granted, assuming it to be just the common-sensical way of apprehending the world. We forget that such sensibilities were anything but common only three centuries ago.

Once a position becomes established as "common sense" it earns a number of problems. First, most people accept it without knowing why, making it no better than religion for many of its consumers. Science is superior to religion only insofar as we can demonstrate why it is better than religion. Second, any "common sense" position will be automatically beset by clever people who adore dismantling common sense positions, simply for the sheer joy of it. Third, rhetorically speaking, the part of the audience that is persuaded by an appeal to common sense generally doesn't care that you're having the debate to begin with. The people who are interested are going to side with the clever guy.

Now, armed with a firm philosophical understanding of scientific pragmatism, one could, for example, point out that the debate between Berkeley and Locke was a quibble over a metaphysical point that has remarkably little bearing on the epistemic rationale for scientific pragmatism. Qua pragmatism, science wouldn't really care in the least whether Locke or Berkeley was right.

The conjecture of phenomenal consistency is the potential weakness of scientific pragmatism, but it is so well entrenched as to seem wholly inviolate, and the weakness is equally evident in either Berkeley's or Locke's position. The anticipated subjectivist response begins, "maybe phenomenal consistency seems inviolate for you..." This falls a bit flat, because either Locke was right, in which case there is a material universe outside my own perceptions, and thus what applies to me applies to everyone, or Berkeley was right, in which there is no material universe outside my own perceptions, and thus what applies to me applies to everyone.

day-yim.