-
Contents
- Mystery Meteorite: The case for (and against) a rock from Mercury
- Hard Times for Theorists in a Post-Higgs World: The Large Hadron Collider’s big success leaves no clear avenue for new physics
- In the Eye of the Tiger: Global spread of Asian tiger mosquito could fuel outbreaks of tropical disease in temperate regions
- subscribe
- give a gift
- renew
- RSS Feeds
- email alerts
- Digital Edition
- Podcast
- Past issues
-
Contents
- Infection time: Disease is more severe when it hits in the morning, at least in mice
- Explainer: Our bodies’ internal clocks: Biological clocks determine hunger, sleepiness and other daily rhythms
- Flu in the air: Germs tiny enough to pass through surgical masks may cause half of all cases
Web edition: August 13, 2010
Print edition: August 28, 2010; Vol.178 #5 (p. 32)
Harold Kroto, who shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of buckminsterfullerene (the molecules commonly known as buckyballs), is a chemist at Florida State University in Tallahassee. His research interests extend from the microworld of nanoparticles to the chemistry of interstellar space. He also campaigns for a new vision of science education, emphasizing the responsibilities that scientists have for cooperating internationally to support efforts aimed at securing a sustainable future for the planet. He spoke on such matters recently at the Euroscience Open Forum 2010 conference in Turin, Italy. Science News editor in chief Tom Siegfried reports excerpts from Kroto’s talk.
My definition of science — and it’s an arid term, and almost no one really understands it as far as I’m concerned: The most important aspect of science is that it’s a philosophical construct, which man (and woman) has developed to determine what is true, might be true and can be true.
Once one [accepts] that, one puts science on a very interesting philosophical level, because truth must be universal and must not vary from country to country or planet to planet. Truth assumes that the experiment will always work the same way. That suggests that, basically, it won’t work differently if you pray to the experiment....
Truth is an intellectual integrity issue. I want to stress that…. So for science education, this is an ethical issue. We should be teaching our children how to determine what is true. It depends on evidence. Without evidence, anything goes. And we must teach young people how to recognize the truth. And that’s why there is a conflict between science and dogma, both political and religious. Texas is desecrating science textbooks, and thus the truth....
We have to weigh the evidence in the balance, and science therefore equals truth. John F. Kennedy said, “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”...
I have a four-out-of-five rule for scientific method. Here it is: If you make an observation, develop a theory you think can explain it. Then design some further experiments to test the validity of that theory. If four observations out of five fit, the theory is almost, and I stress almost, certainly right. If only one out of five fits, the theory is almost, almost certainly wrong. We can never say it was wrong. But we can say it’s almost certainly wrong. We must leave the way open for that element of doubt....
This is a moral issue. Let’s get it straight. Science is about evidence and truth. And that’s why we have to think about these things....
The issue we face today is sustainability. Saving the planet — it’s a global citizenship project. We cannot do it by ourselves.… I don’t know whether we can do it, but we need everybody in the world to recognize [that] this is our biggest problem. We’ve got to recognize science as the one community that is international. It doesn’t matter what color you are, what nationality, language you speak. Scientific language is fundamental…. And that makes us different from every other culture. We’re international, we’re global....
I want to make sure that you understand what science and what the responsibility of the scientist is. If you’re a scientist, you have a responsibility. We have created this world, this technology. We’ve done the science. And I think, and I personally believe, we should take some responsibility to ensure it is used for the benefit of mankind, and not to its detriment. If you’re a physicist, we don’t need any more atomic bombs. If you’re a chemist, we don’t need any improvements in napalm, and if you’re an engineer, we don’t need any more land mines. There are people who really feel strongly. Leon Lederman, [who was] head of [Fermilab] and got the Nobel Prize in physics, said, “So many years have passed and the human race is still saddled with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet. We must redouble our efforts to unify the science community against this huge stupidity.”...
Scientists have enemies now out there who are trying to destroy science…. It’s not just against evolution. It’s about truth. It’s much more fundamental…. It’s about science, it’s about your culture, it’s about how children and adults should determine what is true. And therefore you have an enemy, the enemies who want to undermine the ability of young people and adults to find out what is actually true, on the basis of evidence. Don’t underestimate that one....
Destroy the planet? It doesn’t look good. I look at the evidence. Four out of five [indicators] suggest ... that we’ve got a problem. Not only that, our children have a problem, and our grandchildren almost certainly seem to have a problem. I’m not sure. But I said almost certainly.
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
I don't know precisely what he means by "saving the planet" and "sustainability", but I'm almost certainly sure that he's referring to the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Being objective, among other things, means keeping politics and social activism strictly out of your analysis. He hasn't even tried to do that.
I disagree completely. Since science is the closest method we have to arrive objectively at the truth, and science does not discriminate against any person or country (hence is as universal as it gets) it is essential to include scientific analysis in forming governmental policy and action. Science can and should have a political and social impact precisely because of its objectivity and universality. It is faith and untestable beliefs that should have no role in government or public education. After all, faith is subjective by definition, and thus as few as two people can believe diametrically opposite things. Which of those two then is right? Scientific reason permits discussion and disagreement when the observations are inconsistent or insufficient to eliminate conflicting hypotheses. The things is, the scientific method leads to an understanding of that uncertainty, and that is what keeps dogma from dominating over reason.
If we don't allow reason to guide our politics, we are going to wipe ourselves out in an unspeakably tragic manner. This is what motivates scientists to take social action.
Peter Kaczkowski
You've got it backwards.
I said "Being objective, among other things, means keeping politics and social activism strictly out of your analysis."
When you analyze data, you do it with social objectives in mind? For example, when you publish global temperature data, do you deliberately alter thermometer readings by adding increasing trendlines to your raw data? (Jim Hanson does!) Or do you cherry-pick your data by ignoring inconvenient cooling trends? (Michael Mann does!) Or do you first publish a report of recommended policy actions, and then, afterward, begin the research to support it? (The IPCC does!)
This type of behavior is the norm, rather than the exception, in AGW research. It's disgraceful, and it's simply not science. If you apriori fix a hypothesis, then you are at best biased, and usually deluded. As Newton said, "I do not fix hypotheses." (Of course, Newton was a physicist, not a climatologist.)
Kroto does not even tell us precisely what "science" he's referring to. And he does not bother to quantify his level of certainty, either. Is he 99.9% certain? Or only 10% certain? Like most of the AGW crowd, he just assumes that we all know what he's talking about and that we agree with him. He also doesn't mention the the cost/benefit of "sustainability".
It's the usual vague, post-modern strategy: repeat an opinion for a political end and justify it by calling it science. And when that fails, call it a consensus. (Not that consensus has any role in science.)
I am interested in real, objective, traditional science. Give me some concrete conclusions, with error bars, and then we can talk about "saving the earth".
In other words, science can and must be objective, but it also by definition is done within a social context. You cannot have science without funding, and it has always been the case, even in the days of yore, since science, like it or not, is a social activity.
"Treat science right and it could help save the world"
Science, not Scientists, and certainly not "scientists'" trade union members, members of the AAAS = American Association Against Science, whose only goal is obtaining public funds by a variety of anti-science means.
Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)
I'm a little unsure what you are participating in Science News forums for, ...other than to look for something to vent against. Dr. Kroto presents a clear and cogent argument, and other than a few reasonable assertions that science and society are intertwined, I don't see anything except, "he's wrong and that's all there is to it" in many of your comments.
My suggestion is to log off, read articles if you wish, but stay out of the forum, which should be discussing science (and society). We have a very scientifically illiterate society, and Dr. Kroto makes a very basic statement about the basis of science: "The most important aspect of science is that it’s a philosophical construct, which man (and woman) has developed to determine what is true, might be true and can be true." Let's pursue that path rather than make personal attacks and unfounded statements based on our beliefs.
Mr. Kroto should take myths seriously, not literally. They tell basic truths about mankind and how men relate to each other and their world. The Bible is a study of the development of government, made up of myth and history. People who take it literally, either for or against it, are missing the point of the book.
A myth that fits this column is the story of Chicken Little, who ran around getting the easily frightened in a panic that the sky was falling--whereupon the fox took advantage of their panic.
Such appears to be the case with AGW, just as it was with eugenics in the last century. Governments take advantage of such panic-fads to increase their power. Its very easy for them to feed the panic when they fund the studies, choosing scientists with a bias and funding that bias.
Live free, and prosper.
Rycke
Thanks for contributing some sanity and intellect to these comments.
As for myself, it seems to me that advocating ceasing government funding of scientific research, or comparing the data supporting AGW with the data supporting the purported advisability of eugenics, is reflective of an astonishingly profound ignorance of the history of modern science.
OTOH, I do perceive a lot of confusion embodied in the text of this column (at least as excerpted from Prof. Kroto's address), which I hope to get around to addressing.
Thanks for contributing some sanity and intellect to these comments.
As for myself, it seems to me that advocating ceasing government funding of scientific research, or comparing the data supporting AGW with the data supporting the purported advisability of eugenics, is reflective of an astonishingly profound ignorance of the history of modern science.
OTOH, I do perceive a lot of confusion embodied in the text of this column (at least as excerpted from Prof. Kroto's address), which I hope to get around to addressing.
The arguments are weak, self-contradictory, self-defeating and will not ultimately contribute to helping to achieve what the professor (and I certainly) would like to see achieved.
~~~~
Regarding a few selected excerpts from the column,...
“science is a philosophical construct, which man (and woman) has developed to determine what is true, might be true and can be true.”
And that ‘philosophical construct’ is itself completely unscientific. It is a _CHOICE_, a shared assumption, or an existential commitment, or an act of faith, but it’s not, in itself, scientific. (Call it ‘The Scientific Assumption’ if you will.) Science deals only with propositions whose validity can be supported (or outright disproved) only by repeatable data. Try to use the scientific method to demonstrate that all that is true can be demonstrated by the scientific method. Try to use the scientific method to demonstrate that the Buddha really did actually experience enlightenment as he described it –- or even as it is captured in the historical record. It’s better to say that science is an extraordinarily powerful method of demonstrating the credibility of certain categories of claims, formulated in a certain manner, to other people who might not otherwise be inclined to consider such claims to be credible.
“truth must be universal and must not vary from country to country or planet to planet.”
Those “must”s are not in any sense empirical. That there exists something called “truth” which possesses those attributes is a shared assumption, or an existential commitment, or an act of faith, but it is not scientific.
“Truth assumes that the experiment will always work the same way.”
Only for those “truths” that can be properly formulated and repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. Demonstrate to me that your subjective experience of a particular shade of the color blue is identical to my experience of it. My own subjective experience of a particular shade of blue is entirely outside the scope of science, and it indeed might be completely irrelevant to anything of practical social import, but it sure as heck is as ‘true’ to me as anything I believe to be ‘true.’
“Truth is an intellectual integrity issue. I want to stress that…. So for science education, this is an ethical issue.”
I doubt that notions such as integrity and ethics will ever be completely encompassed by science -- and I certainly do not believe that accepting the validity and value of these notions should be delayed until they can be more fully addressed by science. :-)
“We should be teaching our children how to determine what is true. It depends on evidence.”
NOW we’ve arrived at the particular bit that engendered much of my motivation to submit this letter.
People should decide for themselves what is true, and they would indeed be well-advised to do so on the basis of the ‘evidence’ of their personal experience. But whether their evidence can be objectively repeatable, at any given point in time, is an entirely different matter.
Regarding _science_ education (as separate from _moral_ education), it would be better to advise that “we should be teaching our children:”
(a) how to formulate hypotheses that are capable of being objectively demonstrated (or disproved);
(b) how correctly to extract, or ‘translate,’ or ‘filter,’ from otherwise not entirely scientific claims, hypotheses that _are_ capable of being objectively demonstrated (or disproved);
(c) how to recognize claims, or aspects of claims, that are completely incapable of being modified into scientific hypotheses.
“Without evidence, anything goes. And we must teach young people how to recognize the truth.”
Better that we teach them how to do (a), (b) & (c) above.
“And that’s why there is a conflict between science and dogma, both political and religious.”
There is “conflict between science and dogma” only where dogma strays into claims that are addressable via empirical methods.
“Texas is desecrating science textbooks, and thus the truth....”
Better to say that Texas is desecrating science...and thereby desecrating a lot claims of great import that are very (very) likely true.
“This is a moral issue.”
Now I think you’ve got something there if you’re trying to say that science should be conducted within a broader context that is not necessarily inherently scientific but is nonetheless of extraordinary importance.
“Let’s get it straight. Science is about evidence and truth.”
Science is about evidence for the purported ‘truth’ of certain kinds of statements.
Scientists have enemies now out there who are trying to destroy
science…. It’s not just against evolution. It’s about truth.
At least that isn’t “the truth.” “IT’S ABOUT” certain claims that we can very reliably assume to be true.
The arguments are weak, self-contradictory, self-defeating and will not ultimately contribute to helping to achieve what the professor (and I certainly) would like to see achieved.
~~~~
Regarding a few selected excerpts from the column,...
“science is a philosophical construct, which man (and woman) has developed to determine what is true, might be true and can be true.”
And that ‘philosophical construct’ is itself completely unscientific. It is a _CHOICE_, a shared assumption, or an existential commitment, or an act of faith, but it’s not, in itself, scientific. (Call it ‘The Scientific Assumption’ if you will.) Science deals only with propositions whose validity can be supported (or outright disproved) only by repeatable data. Try to use the scientific method to demonstrate that all that is true can be demonstrated by the scientific method. Try to use the scientific method to demonstrate that the Buddha really did actually experience enlightenment as he described it –- or even as it is captured in the historical record. It’s better to say that science is an extraordinarily powerful method of demonstrating the credibility of certain categories of claims, formulated in a certain manner, to other people who might not otherwise be inclined to consider such claims to be credible.
“truth must be universal and must not vary from country to country or planet to planet.”
Those “must”s are not in any sense empirical. That there exists something called “truth” which possesses those attributes is a shared assumption, or an existential commitment, or an act of faith, but it is not scientific.
“Truth assumes that the experiment will always work the same way.”
Only for those “truths” that can be properly formulated and repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. Demonstrate to me that your subjective experience of a particular shade of the color blue is identical to my experience of it. My own subjective experience of a particular shade of blue is entirely outside the scope of science, and it indeed might be completely irrelevant to anything of practical social import, but it sure as heck is as ‘true’ to me as anything I believe to be ‘true.’
“Truth is an intellectual integrity issue. I want to stress that…. So for science education, this is an ethical issue.”
I doubt that notions such as integrity and ethics will ever be completely encompassed by science -- and I certainly do not believe that accepting the validity and value of these notions should be delayed until they can be more fully addressed by science. :-)
“We should be teaching our children how to determine what is true. It depends on evidence.”
NOW we’ve arrived at the particular bit that engendered much of my motivation to submit this letter.
People should decide for themselves what is true, and they would indeed be well-advised to do so on the basis of the ‘evidence’ of their personal experience. But whether their evidence can be objectively repeatable, at any given point in time, is an entirely different matter.
Regarding _science_ education (as separate from _moral_ education), it would be better to advise that “we should be teaching our children:”
(a) how to formulate hypotheses that are capable of being objectively demonstrated (or disproved);
(b) how correctly to extract, or ‘translate,’ or ‘filter,’ from otherwise not entirely scientific claims, hypotheses that _are_ capable of being objectively demonstrated (or disproved);
(c) how to recognize claims, or aspects of claims, that are completely incapable of being modified into scientific hypotheses.
“Without evidence, anything goes. And we must teach young people how to recognize the truth.”
Better that we teach them how to do (a), (b) & (c) above.
“And that’s why there is a conflict between science and dogma, both political and religious.”
There is “conflict between science and dogma” only where dogma strays into claims that are addressable via empirical methods.
“Texas is desecrating science textbooks, and thus the truth....”
Better to say that Texas is desecrating science...and thereby desecrating a lot claims of great import that are very (very) likely true.
“This is a moral issue.”
Now I think you’ve got something there if you’re trying to say that science should be conducted within a broader context that is not necessarily inherently scientific but is nonetheless of extraordinary importance.
“Let’s get it straight. Science is about evidence and truth.”
Science is about evidence for the purported ‘truth’ of certain kinds of statements.
Scientists have enemies now out there who are trying to destroy
science…. It’s not just against evolution. It’s about truth.
At least that isn’t “the truth.” “IT’S ABOUT” certain claims that we can very reliably assume to be true.
I want to read more.
........
used cars
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.