Does Science Call Things Into Question?

Read Transcript

Science is about calling things into question. The scientific method is about repetual skepticism. Any theory in science could be broken tomorrow if there'e an experiment that shows it's wrong. And no matter how many other experiments show it was right, most theories in science have some corner or some edge of application when in fact there is better theory.

Newton came up with an excellent theory of how things move. And for things that move slowly means slower than light, so it can be quite fast and still works and for things that are immensely massive, have excellent theory. That turns out Newton was wrong. He was wrong because he didn't understand special relativity, he was wrong because he didn't understand general relativity, their gravity and he was wrong because he didn't understand quantum theory.

That doesn't really make him wrong overall. His theory is an excellent approximation to the truth within a range of parameters, all sciences that way, so it's healthy for people to be sceptical of signs. The problem with the climate debate or other problem you have when you get a poor scientist on the stand in the courtroom, and the attorney cross examining the scientist says, are you sure? Wel, the scientists is honest to the sceptical nature of science will say, well no, I'm not sure, it's extraordinarily likely.

And when you take science, it's this skepticism thing we always have this idea of testing and retesting and you put it into a political arena. This is demanding. A black or white, yes or no polarized answer. The outcome's bad. The outcome is bad in two ways, one is, good science winds up being cast aside because someone say well, it's just a theory.

Yeah, just because understanding everything is just a theory. Hello? I mean you don't know the sun is going to come up tomorrow, it's just a theory. I'd bet on that theory, it's pretty damn likely. You know the intuitive ways in which we talk about what we know and what we don't, don't applies to all the size.

The other problem though with climate to be honest is once you get this polorized atmosphere, climate scientists who are tired of hearing their scientific things dismissed, when they are properly scientific and give all of the caveats, they start saying well the hell with the caveats.

Let's just the role is going to held on the hand basket tomorrow or there's another set of few looks like [xx], lets try to scare up. And the problem with the let;s try to scare them is people don't scare easily. If we scared easily, all those cardiologist telling all of us how we had to work out more and eat better, we would listen to them.

That's true. But we don't because we we have an agenda. So, I think Science is the ultimate curiosity engine because it's not just about being curious, that's the opening anti, you can't feel like curious, you are not going to be scientist, you are not going to come into the game.

Scientists also offers any answer, which is this by the way if you follow this thing we call the scientific method, if you are careful and vigorous observations and if you are always open to the idea that something could be disproven, that every theory can continually be tested.

That that let's you know something. In a sense, science gives a definition of knowledge. Knowledge is not that which was carved on a stone tablet by my ancestors. It is not that which my mother always taught me when I was a child or that which I personally experienced. Now knowledge is something that you attain through a process of constant testing and skeptism.

And so I think it's the perfect, probably part of curiosity because science is what lets you scratch the edge. It gives you a way of saying, yeah I know this and if you press me, I'll say well I only know it provisionally because I'm always going to be a little sceptical but that's why you should believe me and the guy who is certain and stops testing and stops being, don't believe him.

He might be right about a few things but in the long on run, the approach of being the non-scienific approach, where you don't have continual testing on skepticism then it's going to be.