Daily Archives: Wednesday, 16:26, September 28, 2011
The above claim is part of an argument I’ve heard many times, with such examples of it’s truth offered frequently being the impossibility of heavier than air flight claimed by Lord Kelvin and the mistaken but popular notion, and never seriously entertained by the scientific community itself, that the flight of bumblebees was scientifically impossible.
It was not that bumblebee flight was thought to be literally impossible, but that it was not fully understood exactly how exactly it worked prior to research on the aerodynamics of bumblebee flight in the 1990s.
Note: Science has never claimed that any known phenomenon commonly observed and fully documented at the time is impossible.
This line of argument is often used as an example of how scientists have been proven wrong before in stating something to be impossible, to support the claim that therefore nothing is impossible, and that it necessarily follows that all such statements of impossibility have been or will inevitably be shown wrong.
It implies that whatever we want to be possible, whatever we imagine, merely in the imagining of it, trumps any and all past, present and future limits imposed by science on the possible and the plausible. It implies we can be godlike merely by wishing hard enough, or that even if the wishing doesn’t literally make it so, that it means it’s so.
Perhaps a better formulation of this entry’s title would be “(A) scientist (s) said X was impossible!” and it would probably be a better context to argue from than condemning the whole of science on whatever claim is being advocated.
Lord Kelvin was right about quite a bit, and made invaluable contributions to physics, but he was fatally incorrect in his calculations that to him showed the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight (birds, bats, insects, (and long ago, pterosaurs,) do (and did) it all the time), and his ignorance of radioactivity (then undiscovered) led him to conclude that the Earth could only be millions of years old, not the billions that it is.
This is why the authority of any given scientist must be always open to fair questioning and open criticism by others in the field, why a community of researchers are more likely to be correct than any one individual no matter how imminent, and why even then, science as a whole must always be scrupulously self-critical and open to correction.
No one researcher speaks for science as a whole with unquestioned authority despite any significance of their contributions.
The cold, hard truth is that scientists are human, and are permitted the right to be wrong by any reasonable person because of this. Being wrong, and being shown wrong by other scientists is simply how science moves forward, getting closer than before to the truth.
Because you cannot find out what is true unless you can also tell what is not…
…and in this, having inbuilt mechanisms for error-detection, science is unlike any other human social enterprise ever invented, which is why I find it among the very greatest of our ideas, the best of our various claims to ways of knowing.
Science can be and has been wrong, often grossly wrong, but step by step it leads us further toward what is more true than less, to a better understanding of what really is when it is allowed to work properly and unshackled by ideology.
Science does not discard findings that are useful, that repeatedly continue to be verified, that consistently withstand attempts to falsify them, findings that are enhanced, deepened, elaborated on by new knowledge, and which continue to make valid predictions of the world in their domain of operation.
We are bound principally by the laws of physics, and limited by our understanding of them, so those who understand them professionally have a good deal to justifiably say on what we can know to be impossible — pending further and better knowledge.
Expert critics of paranormal and fringe claims are expert critics, not because of a lack of understanding, or unfamiliarity with the subject they critique, but precisely because they understand their subject so well that they know exactly how and where proponents of these ideas go wrong in making their claims, knowing full well how they go astray in both data and theory.
One does not have to have a string of PhD.s in nonsense after one’s name to know why and how it is nonsense, but knowing the subject is essential to fair and objective criticism.
Science shows us our limits, our limits as human beings, and the limits of nature itself. It shows us our horizons, but it also opens up new and fantastic worlds to explore — fantastic all the more, because what it shows us is real — not merely the product of our imaginings and wishful impositions upon the universe. Knowing our limits and the limits of the world is good, not restrictive, because only by admitting these exist and addressing them may we overcome them.
- Faster-than-light travel discovered? Slow down, folks (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
- Uncle Karl disses the evangelicals at last! (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
You all may have noted that I’m reposting some of entries from my archives, those classics that didn’t get much airtime due to this blog’s obscurity at the time they were originally published. I’m going to be posting some new entries this week, of course, but the reposting is necessary to make time for study periods and other non-blogging necessities at home and at library.
This is also useful for showing some of the ‘best of Troythulu’ from this blog’s earlier days, and the evolution of my writing style, such as that is, over time.
So here it is, like yesterday’s entry, verbatim with all its warts. Enjoy.
I’ve come to the conclusion that I am not a genuine skeptic, but a pseudoskeptic and a pseudointellectual according to Neo-Velikovskians I’ve met online. Yep, I’m downright delusional and deranged, because I believe that…
…anecdotes are only useful for the purpose of forming hypotheses, not testing them,
…Nostradamus was not a prophet—he may have seen things, but not the future,
…there is such a thing as an objective reality, that exists regardless of our wishes, thoughts, and beliefs, and that this is the best, most rational explanation for the evidence of our senses,
…the scientific community is not a sinister, monolithic conspiracy bent on hiding the truth of the paranormal, nor skeptics a ‘new inquisition,’
…President Barack Obama was born a United States citizen, and that his birth certificate proves this,
…claims of the paranormal can be most parsimoniously explained by conventional means without invoking supernatural powers or phenomena,
…coincidences are real, and that it would be an extraordinary coincidence if extraordinary coincidences didn’t happen as often as they do,
…the Fantasy-Prone Personality type exists as a real psychological phenomenon, even if it explains a person’s belief that they are psychic,
…you don’t have to be crazy, lying, stupid, or uneducated to believe things that just ain’t so,
…unlikely statistical correlation does not equate to paranormal causation, or scientific importance,
…conventional explanations are not weak or implausible & contrived just because they are not understood or known,
…evolution actually happened, and the Earth is billions, not thousands, of years old,
…while electromagnetism does play some astrophysical role in the universe, the principle large-scale binding force of the Cosmos is gravity,
…anthropogenic global warming, and the resultant climate change, are real, and need to be dealt with in a rational manner to stave off their detrimental consequences,
…Quantum mechanics, Classical mechanics, and the Special & General theories of Relativity are all valid descriptions in their own context as to how the universe works,
…conventional evidence-based medicine is not a conspiracy to make and keep you sick, and is safer and more effective than most alternative modalities,
…miracles do not really happen, the mundane actually exists and isn’t boring,
…black holes, quasars, neutron stars, dark matter and dark energy are all real astrophysical entities,
…impact craters on planetary bodies are made by (gasp!) impacts by meteorites, asteroids and comets over billions of years, not electrical scarring over minutes or hours,
…the supernatural and the paranormal probably don’t exist, just the natural, the normal, and those things we have yet to explain,
…looking for conventional explanations and eliminating them one by one is more rational than grasping for supernormal explanations first,
…personal testimony is not a reliable form of proof that something is real, works, or is true,
…skeptical organizations, while not perfect, are generally more factually correct, honest, objective, rational, and fair in their treatment of subject matter than organizations run by paranormal and fringe-science believers,
…meta-analyses are not an accurate way of demonstrating the validity of a set of studies if the component studies have incompatible methodological and statistical protocols, or are ‘tweaked’ or ‘fixed’ after the fact,
…relativism and false balance are not the same thing as objectivity,
…astrology is not a valid science, and has been falsified in every empirical test of it to date,
…the UFO phenomenon is more likely to be psycho-cultural than extraterrestrial in nature,
…open-mindedness is unquestionably a virtue, but not opening your mind so far that your brains fall out,
…Bigfoot, the Jersey Devil, Nessie, Mothman, the Montauk Monster(s), Mokele Mbembe, the Mongolian Death-Worm, and other similar creatures probably don’t exist as real animals,
…free-energy or perpetual motion machines don’t work as claimed, much less at all,
…real science and the wonders of nature are far more interesting than the parochial claims of the paranormal,
…evidence does not have to be ‘absolute concrete physical proof’ to be acceptable in science, or to skeptics,
…claims of fact or statements about reality are not just opinion and immune to being considered wrong just because one wants to believe them,
…the burden of proof for a claim of fact rests primarily upon the one making the claim, not its critics,
…all views should get a fair hearing, but not all views are equally valid in truth content,
…human beings have the unalienable right to believe what they wish, so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others to believe what they wish,
…science and reason are superior to authority, ideology, intuition, faith, and mystical experience as ways of knowing the world.
Yessiree, I am just one big-time true believer for harboring all these crazy, irrational ideas… Fnord.