Science steps in and looks at the processes of nature and shows us how to tease apart the secrets of their workings, slowly and carefully and with missteps along the way. The missteps are readily acknowledged and re-examined. The successes are retested to make sure they closely approximate (within a high confidence interval) the truth. Then they are once again examined as new questions arise that cast doubt on the answers.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Why are so many people convinced that we only use 10% of our brains, or that Eskimos have n words for snow, where n is as high as you need it to be for the desired rhetorical effect? Or more seriously, why have some people, particularly Fox News viewers (no, really), persistently believed in Saddam…
As promised ...
William the Blogger of YNH fame should seriously consider starting a new blog (after a suitable rest period in a witness protection program).
One reason is just because everyone should blog. But the other reason is for his own good. I can't imagine how someone could carry out this…
To scientists, "experimental" is a technical word, one with a precise meaning: that which relates to a procedure of methodical trial and error, to a systematic test for determining the nature of reality. I got in trouble on this blog once, with commenters, for using the word "experimental" too…
I woke up yesterday, made myself a cup of coffee and sat down with the New York Times, and a left over piece of corn bread from Thanksgiving.
It was a beautiful morning and I was at peace.
Then I read this (I will try to be polite) by Paul Davies.
Apparently scientists operate on faith. Faith that…
(a) is this how scientists work, or how scienctists like to portray themselves as working?
(b) sen. franken!