Reader please note that the issues raised in this article, have been caricatured. So when it says that scientists can't do this or that, it should be read as most scientists... or in general, scientists .... Exceptions to a rule can always be found. The name Man is used to denote mankind. Also please note that this document is updated from time to time.

For suggestions and feedback, please e-mail the author. Read tips for printing for best results.
The whole document covers about 0.15 MB, 35 printed pages.

--Seafriends home--sitemap-- Revised: 20010816,20020904,20021220,20051103,20070412,20070725,20170617,

Underlying all science are the principles of finding the truth:

• observation: observing what happens and describing it so that others can verify.
• measurement: where possible, measuring observations in quantities that allow computation and comparison.
• objectivity: while doing the experiment, distancing oneself from its interpretation. Also avoiding to influence the experiment.
• logical reasoning: relating observations to theory; classifying, grouping, comparing, asking questions, etc.
• arithmetic and mathematics: mathematics is another language for describing results. Mathematical formulas are exact. When newfound rules are expressed in mathematical notation, they become very powerful.
• synthesis (Gk: syn=with/together; tithemi=to put; to put together) the process or result of building up separate elements, especially ideas, into a connected whole, especially into a theory or system.
• predicting: using newfound rules, other situations can be predicted, then tested to give more credence to the rule.

 

The greatest breakthroughs in science occur when someone understands that apparently different phenomena have the same underlying cause. (Isaac Newton?)

• exclusion of unwanted causes: by carefully designing the experiment and measurements, unwanted causes can be minimised. However, such careful design in itself, can be prone to bias and cause side effects. Side effects may be important as is the case with medical cures.
• repetition: a single experiment is not proof in itself, but many repetitions under varying circumstances, and conducted by many scientists all over the world, give more credibility, thus strengthening the theory.
• replication: Other scientists elsewhere must be able to replicate the experiment and arrive at the same conclusions (or not). Therefore the experimental method and materials must be described accurately.
• statistical analysis: mathematical techniques are available to test the result for chance. What is the chance that the measured effect was caused by a coincidence of circumstances? Obviously, the more repetitions and replications, the more certainty.

The simple fact of observation, disturbs the system under study. Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, 1927.

When a result is paradoxical and cannot be explained, you probably found something new. Floor Anthoni

When reading the scientific literature, it appears as if each experiment just happened without prior thought, as if it was the only logical thing to do, as if failures are not part of the process. The reality is that the real scientific process is not revealed. It starts with a hunch, an idea, which is then tested with a quick-and-dirty experiment, to see if the idea has any grounds at all. When it looks promising, a hypothesis is formed.

hypothesis (Gk: hypo= below/under; tithemi= placing/ proposing; foundation) a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without the assumption of its truth. An idea to work with. A starting point for further investigation. Note that a hypothesis is not a theory, but may become one over time.

null-hypothesis: a hypothesis suggesting that the difference between samples does not imply a difference between populations. It is usually formulated before the experiment, for the express purpose of being rejected by the evidence in the data, thus confirming the research hypothesis. Because science is strong in disproving but weak in proving a case, the null-hypothesis should be a serious effort at disproving the experiment and in doing so, fail. It should prove that there is no other cause. Alas, this is not normally done and the null-hypothesis has become a farce.

Experiments can seldom be done without also making the tools to do them. Often ingenuity and inventiveness in making the experimental setup and instruments, is more important than the actual experiment. Vast numbers of scientists are devoting their lives to improving scientific instrumentation: making them more sensitive, more precise, easier to use, cheaper to use and so on.

Every successful or unsuccessful experiment brings new insight, but the successful ones are being published. So those people who acquire knowledge by only reading scientific journals, miss the insight that comes from making mistakes, and that from actually doing the experiment. This makes it hard for newcomers to enter the field. As stated before, it is not the purpose of science to produce data or information, but more so to interpret this to understand the functioning behind it. Such functioning is then formulated as a theory. A theory may link the results of many experiments by many people together into a coherent whole. Sometimes millions of elements of data and years of thought can be compressed into a single formula like Einstein's famous energy-mass equivalence:  e = m x c² .

theory (Gk: theoreo= to look at) a supposition or system of ideas explaining something. An explanation based on general principles, independent of the particular things to be explained. The exposition of the principles of an idea. A scientific theory evolves from a hypothesis (working idea) after very thorough testing by many scientists.

When scanning the scientific literature of today, one may be excused for thinking that science is done only with expensive instruments, and inside laboratories, using the most advanced computer techniques. However, good science can be done with simple means, although it is almost true that all simple things have been done already.

In any new field, science develops along a predictable course:

• observation: observing nature, and faithfully describing what is observed. Without a good 'feel' of what is normal and what is exceptional, no other forms of science can be done meaningfully. From observation good scientific hypotheses can be drawn to guide more detailed research.
• classification: ordering observations in rank of: frequency, seasonality, severity, importance, etc. The systematic classification of organisms precedes any study using such organisms. It is a seemingly laborious task, requiring lots of specific low-level knowledge, and an inquisitive mind. Classification, the ordering of data into meaningful sets, is an important scientific activity.
• observations in the laboratory: by taking bits from the outside into the laboratory, observations can be made using powerful microscopes and other analytical equipment.
• measurements in the field: by collecting numerical data rather than descriptive data, observations can be quantified and represented in graphical form and they can be subjected to comparison, mathematics and statistical analysis.
• controlled experiments in the field: experiments can be conducted in the open air, either on the natural situation or on special plots, but such experiments are influenced by environmental variations.
• controlled experiments in the laboratory: in the laboratory, conditions can be controlled to a high degree, thereby excluding unwanted causes, but the danger is that the study becomes reductionist and less holistic (considering the whole) while introducing other unwanted causes.
• expressing findings mathematically: the main purpose of science is in trying to understand how and why things work. Mathematics provides a type of language to express this understanding between cause and effect. Particularly in the physical sciences, equations (mathematical formulas) can be derived from experimental data.
• computer modelling: with computer models, scientists study whether their mathematical findings match reality, particularly where a number of equations (rules) are involved simultaneously. The computer models calculate reality in reverse, and this virtual reality can then be compared with the real world to see if the underlying assumptions are right. Computer models are dangerous because they depend on many assumptions: the rules, the starting conditions and the parameters. Inside a program, these are hidden from view, and can be adjusted to achieve any outcome. Like computer programs, models cannot be proved to be right, or to be working as intended.

Although science is invented only by the brightest of people, it can be understood by many, and used by very large numbers of people with only average intelligence. Only when science is taught, does it truly become useful to society.

Scientific thinking for you and me
It is perhaps an enormous tragedy, that the scientific method of thinking is thought to belong only to scientists, but aren't we all interested in the truth, and aren't we all keen to ban falsehood? Shouldn't we all be keen to protect our brains from lies and half-truths that clog up our memories, and obstruct our thinking? Aren't we in the end only what our memories represent?

It is so promising that most humans by the age of 11, are eager to learn, wide-eyed and on the ball, unobstructed by an overload of misinformation and trivial information. Yet by the age of 40 they have assumed many bad habits, their brains dulled by overloads of unimportant facts, and confused by conflicting truths and lies, that they are not able to tell them apart. In the end they won't be able to steer their lives, living only from one impulse to the next. So, why not protect that most precious of organs you possess, your brain?

As you can see from the scientific method outlined above, it is not difficult to make it your own. Do everything you can to remain honest with yourself. Try to be objective. Try to doubt the undoubtable. Try not to load your brain with unimportant trivia. Cut through the nonsense, and keep your brains clean. Postpone belief, because you won't need it. What is wrong with saying: I (we) don't know (yet)?

• a study wich is too fragmented
• a hypothesis which is too trivial
• referenced literature too biased (one can select only supportive work from others)
• study or writing too egotistical or self-serving
• warped designs or methods
• bungled methodology
• presentation of results too inaccurate
• wrong or inadequate use of mathematics and statistics
• contradictory statements
• circular arguments
• trifling or unjustified conclusions
• syntax and grammar errors

• scientists in a certain discipline often form a tight-knit group (a clique), favouring and peer-reviewing one another's papers. They visit the same conferences and think along the same lines, which becomes the 'accepted' viewpoint (consensus).
• as a result, diverging viewpoints and criticism are often rejected.
• peer review often determines acceptability rather than validity; where a paper is to be published rather than if.
• competition between scientists for placement in the same 'prestigious' journals often causes biased and unjust rejections by competing reviewers who remain unaccountable and secret.

Even then one must remember that science is an on-going process; that what is discovered and explained today can be proved wrong and un-explained tomorrow. Yet publications always remain and cannot be withdrawn. As a result, the scientific literature is awash in falsities, and from these one can pick whatever peer-reviewed publication supports one's viewpoint. The scientific literature is a labyrinth of truths and untruths.

Andrew A. Skolnick,"The Maharishi Caper: Or How to Hoodwink Top Medical Journals, Science Writers: The Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers (Fall 1991), available at www.aaskolnick.com/naswmav.htm
John P. A. Ioannidis, "Why Most Published Research Findings are False," Public Library of Science Medicine 2, no. 8 (August 2005): e124, www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 .
Neal S. Young, John P. A. Ioannidis, and Omar Al-Ubaydli, "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science," Public Library of Science Medicine 5, no. 10 (October 2008): e201, www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201
Jeffrey D. Scargle, "The 'File-Drawer' Problem in Scientific Inference," Journal of Scientific Exploration 14, no. 1 (2000): 91-106, www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_1_scargle.pdf

In the Age of Reason (the Enlightenment) in the 18th century, science really took off with major progress in the fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and economics. Today, scientific study can be divided into four major groups:

• mathematics and logic: are not based on experimental testing, but rely entirely on self-proving.  They can be considered part of science because they are essential tools in almost all scientific study. The findings of mathematics and logic are valid all over the universe.
• physical sciences: examine the nature of the universe.  They study the structure and properties of nonliving matter, from tiny atoms to vast galaxies.  The physical sciences include astronomy, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and physics.
• life sciences: also called the biological sciences or biology, involve the study of living organisms.  There are three main fields of the life sciences.  Botany deals with plants, and zoology with animals. Ecology deals with all living and nonliving matter, and studies how they relate and interact.
• social sciences: deal with the individuals, groups, and institutions that make up human society.  They focus on human relationships and the interactions between individuals and their families, religious or ethnic communities, cities, governments, and other social groups.

Scientific study is an activity which doesn't produce goods or income directly, and thus relies entirely on funding from outside. Since the public at large eventually benefits from scientific progress, governments are their main funders, followed by industry. Science and research have a great tradition in universities where it is part of educating budding young scientists. It was also traditional that scientists could pursue freely their areas of interest, no matter how arcane (understood by few), but this has been changing since the amount of money is limited and recent problems demand all attention.

Limited to 1-3% of Gross National Product, most scientists in the world are now competing for limited funds, but large, affluent nations such as the USA and Russia, spend large amounts on research. Traditionally, research has brought the technology that gave advantage in warfare. With the advantage of weapons that were more powerful, could be deployed over longer distances and aimed more accurately, nations could project their powers, converting military advantage into economic advantage. The colonisation of resource-rich primitive nations, brought wealth to those who held the technological advantage. This is still an important function of science today, and in general it can be said that those who have knowledge hold an advantage over those who don't. However, such advantages are short-lived since others quickly catch up.

Science is practised in 'factories' called institutes or laboratories (laboratory = workshop). In such places, scientists work together with other scientists and with laboratory or research assistants, technicians, librarians and so on. The very expensive equipment they need, requires trained operators and is shared between them. By working in an institute, scientists benefit from having very intelligent and motivated people nearby, to discuss problems, make plans, share work, etc. The institute also shelters them from the soul-destroying task of funding, while providing all the facilities they need, including travelling.

Behind the scenes, scientists have found themselves in an ever more competitive position, encouraged by such practices as:

• competing for funds: before doing any experiment, scientists have to justify the worthiness of their possible results, which causes young scientists to tackle safe experiments: small unrisky ones rather than big, risky but important ones. It has also given rise to the practice of doing the experiment first, then asking for funding based on the already found results. Once the money arrives, the experiment is published exactly as foretold, which enhances reputation. Large institutions with established tradition are better at this than any newcoming genius. It has also made young scientists entirely dependent on the scientific establishment.
• judging competence by the number of publications produced: the number of times one's name is referenced or published, counts highly in a scientist's regard. Often the number of publications, rather than their quality is counted, leading to a profusion of publications unnecessarily taking up journal space, while reporting only little progress. It has fragmented scientific progress.
• competing for journal space: scientific journals are published by companies who make a profit from doing so. The scientific standing of such a journal, highly affects profitability, hence their desire to accept only the best papers. Lesser papers are then accepted by less prestigious journals. Scientists of course, wish their papers to be placed with the best, hence their competition for space, which gives these journals an even bigger leverage for selection. This selection process often unnecessarily prolongs the time of publication, also subjecting scientists to often unnecessary meddling in their affairs.
• the race to publish first: within the world of the scientist, international recognition is of such importance that arbitrarily high value is placed on who found it first, acknowledged by who published it first. This has led to the stealing of ideas, with tragic consequences for those who were first, had done most of the work, but had their publications obstructed, only to see someone else publish their findings first. It has also led to secrecy between scientists.
• insecurity: through shortage in funds, even knowledgeable institutions cannot afford to guarantee long-term employment. Many scientists nowadays work on temporary grants, as if they were in permanent temporary employment. When grants finish their term, these people have to travel on to the next job, wherever offered, on whichever subject. This leads to insecurity and unproductivity, mediocre work, and discontinuity, often leaving the work unfinished. Where society hoped to see better value from competition, in nearly all cases, the opposite has been achieved.
• discontinuity: not all scientists are involved in long-term research, which brings painstakingly slow progress. Some research can be rounded off more rapidly. But almost without exception, such work will raise new questions worthy of pursuing. Temporary employment however, causes scientists to change jobs, shifting from institution to institution and country to country. Such discontinuity is particularly damaging to long-term research, such as monitoring the environment.
• scientific careers: however much a scientist is motivated by the pursuit of knowledge, in the end his scientific career will send him across continents, learning techniques here, teaching there, and so on. It causes discontinuity.

• reductionist thinking: some schools of thought have done science a disservice by attempting to reduce phenomena to the absurd. Quantum mechanics explains the intricate relationships between energy and matter, reducing the universe to probabilities; to the notion that all motion is preordained; that free will cannot exist.

One evolutionary theory holds that the genes of species are in command, producing a fruiting body just to have themselves reproduced (the selfish gene). But aside from this, it is true that every controlled experiment, in looking at only a few factors, in fact is a reductionist approach which does not look at the whole. As a result, scientists have difficulty investigating complex phenomena such as the environment or the human body.
• knowing more and more about less and less: very similar to reductionist thinking, scientists are forced to focus this way, in order to break new ground. It is one reason why the learned lay person, wanting to learn something about more and more, rather than more and more about something, cannot connect to the scientist.
• knowledge takes longer to acquire: in order to play their part, to make new discoveries, young scientists need to learn more than their predecessors. It takes longer to become productive, eventually resulting in the possibility that nobody has all the skills or knowledge that are needed. Knowledge also becomes more difficult to pass on.
• can't know everything; can't be everywhere; can't investigate everything: this is what scientists repeatedly say, when criticised, and they are right. Science has real limits which cannot be overcome by throwing more money and more people at it. It means that one needs to be ever more careful in the selection of what to study, which may lead to bias.
• becomes more expensive: as problems accelerate while becoming more complicated, the time required to study them, increases disproportionately, and with it cost. As a result, we leave more and more questions unchallenged.
• knowledge becomes less certain: as we are studying more and more complex systems, the experiments become less certain, and so do the conclusions obtained from them.
• science is poorly managed: by tradition, institutional scientists and university professors have been directing their own research, preferring to be left alone, unquestioned in their priorities. The age of unmeddled science demands that it be left unmanaged. However, as funds become less adequate for the burgeoning heap of problems, scientists are forced to follow the hand that feeds them, being driven economically by supply and demand. Still, this remains a poor form of management, resulting in many inefficiencies. Eventually, society will be forced to bring all sciences under some sort of managerial umbrella.

 

But they have only analyzed the parts and overlooked the whole, and, indeed, their blindness is marvellous. - Dostoevski 1880

Science, in spite of all of its technical contributions to life, has failed to solve the major problems of society: poverty, hunger, disparity of wealth, greed, envy, conflict, pollution, illiteracy, hatred, oppression, exploitation, unhappiness, misery, etc.

• more problems: as the human impact on the environment is accelerating, so do our problems.
• more serious: the first problems announcing themselves were those that arrived suddenly, but as the slow ones are showing up, they often turn out to be more serious, and more difficult to study and to counteract.
• more difficult: environmental problems have caught society by surprise. Only a century ago, the words ecology and environment were unknown. Ecology has not enjoyed the growth of other sciences, mainly because:
• ecosystem knowledge is difficult: the environment is shaped by millions of creatures interacting in mysterious ways. Changes in such systems cause unanticipated side effects.
• hard to duplicate/replicate experiment: ecosystems are large, and impossible to do controlled experiments with. Thus the main scientific methods that made science great, cannot be applied. In addition, each place on Earth, differs from every other, making it impossible to replicate one another's experiments.
• ecology involves looped-back systems: a looped-back system is one where causes affect themselves in a roundabout or indirect way. Every stabilising system has some sort of feed-back. Warm-blooded animals thermo-regulate their bodies internally, but ecosystems stabilise through the external interactions of  many species.
• ecology requires a wide vision: the study of ecosystems does not only require multiple disciplines, but also a wide vision from each scientist participating, something which has become unusual in science.

• knowledge can stifle further thinking: it is human nature to no longer look for an answer when one is provided, hence also the undue influence of quackery. Knowledge itself can stand in the way of further investigation, particularly when a majority of scientists side with this knowledge. This can cause ridicule, and divert funds away from those querying the accepted wisdom. It has also led to scientists hanging on to outdated ideas for too long.
• knowledge is the scientist's (only) asset: not fortune, but knowledge is the scientist's asset, which he guards jealously, because his reputation, job and income depend on it. He won't share knowledge easily. Criticising his knowledge is experienced as criticising his person.
• scientists depend on other people's knowledge: not being able to know or investigate everything, scientists rely on the knowledge of other scientists, particularly those outside their own discipline. They are reluctant to talk about fields outside their discipline. They are therefore very sensitive to consensus, reason why new ideas are accepted slowly and also why many scientists can be totally wrong, collectively (as in global warming).
• scientists hold the moral high ground: by pursuing TRUTH, scientists stand morally above the masses, which makes them believe that also their OPINIONS are superior, which in itself is unscientific. But it is true that opinions based on scientific facts, are preferable to those that don't.
• knowledge is not freely available: contrary to popular belief, scientific knowledge is not freely available. It is jealously guarded by journal publishers who earn high incomes from it. Their expensive journals are found in universities and institutions, but these are not freely available to the public. Yet the public paid for it! As institutions become more 'business-minded' within the freemarket ideology, they are now also jealously guarding their 'intellectual property'. In all, a very unhealthy situation and a serious obstruction.
• peer review can obstruct new thinking: peer review of publications attempts to assure their quality and objectiveness, but in doing so, it also assures that findings support existing thinking. For the acceptance of an article, the credentials of the institution and those of the scientists are more important than the issues raised in the publication, hence truly new thinking is not recognised, and is in fact discouraged. History is replete with examples of ignored advances in science, because these often came from unconventional and independent thinkers.

 

It is tragic that the public pays for all the costs of publishing scientific journals, including their profit margins, yet the information they contain does not become public property through free access. Floor Anthoni

• KK: the stuff we Know that we Know. This is the awesome amount of knowledge acquired by Main Stream Science and technology, a victory of rationality and the scientific method. It has created the world we live in, and its problems. But remember that much of it is still false.
• KD: the stuff we Know that we Don't know. This is the driver behind current research and research still on hold because the technology to do it is not yet available.
• DK: the stuff we Don't know that we Know. This is probably a small area, where outsiders play an important role as the knowledge is there but nobody realised that it could be joined up into a coherent theory. Darwin and his theory of evolution is a classical example. Did he do experiments? No.
• DD: the stuff we Don't know that we Don't know. This is probably a large area of knowledge that is too weird to be foreseen, but it also contains the gaps in the patchwork quilt of knowledge, waiting for an outsider to discover. The overlooked science fits here. An example of this is our discovery of an overlooked ecological factor in the sea, and its many implications (www.seafriends.org.nz/dda/index.htm)

Hence the importance of outsiders and skeptics to science. Outsiders have no axe to grind, no position to defend, have no institutional blindness, and they are more open to other explanations. They do not mix solely with like-minded people, and often have the time to approach problems from a wide angle, spanning several scientific disciplines. By comparison, a successful scientist needs to spend all his time on his experiments, publishing and keeping uptodate with the latest in his narrow field of expertise. Obviously the one supplements the other, and both are needed. See science needs skeptics on this website.