The problem with this discussion is that itâs based on false premises, i.e. that scientists are conservative people who view physics laws as religion and anything contradicting them as heresy. Thatâs a popular view often shown in fiction and in the popular press, and tends to make non-scientists feel good about themselves (âI may not know as much as them, but at least Iâm not as close-mindedâ). Itâs also a very inaccurate and insulting view of scientists.
While one can never generalise things across an entire group of people, and there are indeed scientists out there who are somewhat ossified (and in the end of the 19th century, itâs true that the science field in general was rather calcified. The public has just failed to notice scientists have moved on from this point of view), the vast majority are extremely forward-thinking and would like nothing better than being proven wrong in some cases. Science advances as much through its failures as through its successes, and itâs in fact the very basis of the scientific method to be ready to expose oneself to being proven wrong (thatâs the meaning of having falsifiable theories: a theory is scientific only if it contains the seeds of its own potential destruction). When a scientist sees something incompatible with their previous knowledge, they donât exclaim âthatâs impossible!â but âthatâs curiousâŚâ. Cracks in current theories are usually where new knowledge is hidden, so scientists actually actively look for them.
What the general audience mistakes as conservatism is actually a combination of traits that are vital for scientists to be able to do actual scientific work:
The threshold of proof is very high in science. Humans can easily be misled, our brains are specialists in fooling themselves, anecdote is not data, so donât expect a scientist to take your tall tale at face value. To be worthy of scientific examination, a phenomenon must be repeatable, independent from the observer, and if possible noticeable in controlled conditions. While itâs true that some discoveries (like some animal species) have started as hearsay, a typical scientist will need more before they go on a wild goose chase for the Yeti;
Our current scientific theories (with âtheoryâ used in its scientific meaning, which is âa well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentationâ, i.e. quite the opposite of a hunch or hypothesis) are extremely successful and have large amounts of data backing them up. This is especially true of General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. These theories have been repeatedly tested and found correct, sometimes down to 10 figures or more after the decimal, both through observation and experimentation. If you want to claim that one of these theories is wrong, the quality of the evidence you are going to have to give will have to match the quality of the evidence in favour of these theories. And if the only evidence against them is your misguided ideas about how the world should be, whether due to religious belief or plain ignorance, donât expect scientists to have a lot of patience listening to you;
While scientists value imagination, they are careful with trying to extrapolate too far from what is already known, and wild speculation is frowned upon, as itâs far too easy to fool oneself into expecting things that wonât happen. Scientific research is like walking in the dark: you make small steps and try to feel your way around. You donât make long jumps and hope not to hit a wall or fall into a hole. Unless you have good reason, based on previous knowledge (like moving in an area you already know), to know that the direction youâre going is the right one.
So to take again the examples shown by the previous rebloggers, a scientist will never say: âthis planet cant have aliens on it because thereâs no water! the atmosphere is wrong! theres not enough heat to sustain life!â. At most, they will say: âThis planet cannot support life as we know it (i.e. carbon-based water-dependent life)â, and thatâs a perfectly correct statement. Could it support other types of life? Who knows? So far, we havenât observed any other type of life, so itâs impossible to actually answer the question without a fair amount of speculation, and as I wrote, scientists prefer to leave speculation to others.
As for the âitâs impossible, it shouldnât exist, it breaks the laws of physicsâ, itâs actually laughable that anyone could think a scientist would ever say that! Maybe in a bad Hollywood movie, but in real life? In real life, cosmologists and particle physicists are actually eager to observe stuff that cannot be explained by their current theories. General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory (and in particular the Standard Model) are extremely successful, but also desperately incomplete (and in the case of the Standard Model, rather inelegant), and actually completely incompatible with each other. Which is a shame, as some of the things weâd like to know depend on having a theory to bridge the two. Thatâs why scientists are eager to discover something that cannot appropriately be explained by these two theories. Such a crack, as I wrote above, would provide hints as to a better way to describe the universe.
So stop propagating this false image of the scientist as a kind of high priest that thinks they hold the truth in their hands and shout down any kind of alternative as heresy. Thatâs not how scientists are, thatâs not how science works, and it reflects more on your own lack of understanding of science than on any imaginary scientistâs failings.
origamiaround
kaledo-art
discoholicmusic
annaxmalina
baratheonpilled
jacobvanloon
izzy806
