Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steven Paul Leiva on February 24, 2012 at 9:51pm

Anthony -- I much appreciate what you are saying.  I've recently blogged on a subject related to this:

SCIENCE IS NOT A FROG -- DON'T DISSECT IT BEFORE YOU APPRECIATE IT.

You can find it here:

http://stevenpaulleivasthisnthat.blogspot.com/2012/02/science-is-no...

Thanks for the post!

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on February 25, 2012 at 12:22am

 

This is proof of the break down in integrity in science, glad to see a correction, hope they dont announce anything else so dramatic without CONFIRMATION. That is NOT the way science works. But, sensation and the desire for grant money blinds many.

It would be indeed a sad day for humanity when people will start loosing faith inthe integrity of scientific research. Scientists involved in making false claims in the name of science do not seem to realise what enormous crime they are commiting for small gains.

Permalink Reply by Anthony bruno on February 25, 2012 at 7:27am

the problem with that is that scientists don't simply hold stuff back. getting information out there for others to check (peer review) finding is why science has the integrity.

there is a real disagreement on the actions of the scientists themselves for how they released this information.

• they let this out to attract funding and were careless
• or, that they did the experiment several times and wanted to put it out there for peer-review

i would make the comparison to the pilt-down man and other creationist favorites; the scientists were not the ones making the false claims but the media of the time  

Permalink Reply by Greg LeGore on February 25, 2012 at 10:47pm

Anthony, I regret that you feel it necessary to so eagerly criticize humanity's greatest achievement, the scientific method, with unfounded statements.  Those of us with extensive experience designing and implementing systems of systems (SoS) know that the the staggering complexity of these SoS makes troubleshooting quite complex, esp. when the implementation takes place over multiple years.  Your statement about a 'seriously controlled' experiment suggests you luck such experience, without which you are not qualified to comment upon the situation.

Permalink Reply by Jessica Berman on February 26, 2012 at 2:56pm

I apologize in advance for the length but I think the details of this controversy are necessary to really understand the science.

Madhukar and Anthony - this report is an example of science at its best. Two respected institutions, CERN and OPERA, collaborate on an experiment about neutrinos, strange particles that pass through matter freely. The measurements are extremely difficult so their methods were detailed and well thought out. They were shocked by the result and weren't looking for it, but because of its importance if accurate, they published it on arXiv.org with a detailed account of how the measurement was made. arXiv.org is an open access site where scientists in many fields post their research and others can see the details and comment on the research.

The press reported it because of its importance, interviewing many experts who were excited but skeptical because of the difficult measurement. The investigators are part of institutions not funded by grants but by international cooperation. This experiment required many scientists and engineers plus extremely expensive equipment - the Large Hadron Collider where the particles are generated alone cost over $10 billion.

This new report is about a possible issue with the copper in a cable at CERN which would affect the results. Just to add to the intrigue a new report from Feb. 22 about another small problem in the measurement could cancel out the copper wiring ones. We've also yet to hear from the institutions attempting to recreate the experiment!

Science at its best - extraordinary results require extraordinary proof. But if the results are true all of physics will be hard at work to understand the universe in new ways.

Permalink Reply by Lilium Mitchell on February 27, 2012 at 10:36am

I think that is his point. Extraordinary results need accurate extraordinary evidence. Indeed this was a great view of the scientific method at work. It is unfortunate that the technology may have been damaged and created the anomaly. That should have been taken into account previous to the reporting of the discovery. It is because of the scientific method that others are now questioning this discovery and the lack of scientific accuracy that others who are looking for fact and not finding it are turning away from science. I think maybe his approach was a bit over the top and aggressive, but his core idea of the scientific community becoming a mix of fact and pseudo fact is accurate in my opinion. Archaeology is an excellent example of this.

Permalink Reply by Jessica Berman on February 27, 2012 at 12:53pm

I just don't understand how this experiment could lead anyone to dismiss science. Physicists around the world were excited by the research even though they felt a small issue would be found because the methods used were so well designed. Posting on arXiv allows all the possible locations for such a small error to be investigated, so a minuscule possibie problem in cabling may account for the finding. No research can be expected to have that level of engineering details before the results - it's not feasible.

Unfortunately I'm saddened by this response because it demonstrates how the public doesn't understand the self correction that's integral to science. The media plays a role in this with their headline reporting only. If people don't believe in the scientific method and it's self correcting ways throw away your computer, cellphones, GPS, etc. The theories that make those possible required exactly the kind of science this research has provoked. A quick example - Einstein published his theory of relativity long before there was any experimental proof. The first proof from solar eclipse photos was controversial and wasn't believed until repeated. If only research with the level of certainty you ask for can be considered valid Einstein's work would've never been published.

Permalink Reply by Greg LeGore on February 27, 2012 at 9:53pm

Lillium, interesting how some people can claim to be swayed against science by something as simple as a mechanical error in an extraordinarily complex system of systems which required years to design and build, but these same people are not swayed by the gigantic errors in their religious texts.  That illustrates the silliness and lack of rigor in their thinking.

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 27, 2012 at 11:24pm

Greg, I agree!

Permalink Reply by Steven Paul Leiva on February 28, 2012 at 8:56am

Very well put, Greg!

Permalink Reply by Lilium Mitchell on February 28, 2012 at 9:54am

It is not as black and white as only this situation. Though I agree. People who are not logical are not going to understand logic.