Models Built on Evidence: Science Ignores Personal Beliefs
Written on
Chapter 1: Understanding Science Beyond Belief
In a light-hearted moment, I received a humorous coffee mug as a Father’s Day gift. The message on it sparked a variety of responses when I shared a photo online, some of which misinterpreted it as a criticism of religion. That was not my intention. The mug essentially communicates that in the realm of science, personal beliefs hold no weight; they are irrelevant to the scientific method.
So, what exactly is this concept of "science" that we often hear about? In essence, science revolves around the creation of models. These models can take various forms — from tangible representations like a globe of Earth to abstract concepts such as equations or computer algorithms designed to simulate complex phenomena like the three-body problem.
Creating a scientific model can begin with a mere concept, reflecting the creativity required in scientific inquiry, or can stem from experimental findings. Regardless of its origin, a model must correlate with observable reality; it should possess the ability to predict or elucidate aspects of the real world. Without this vital link, a scientific model is no more than a narrative or a game.
Since models are validated against real-world data, personal beliefs of scientists become secondary. While it can be challenging to fully detach belief from scientific work — after all, scientists are human — the aim is to strive for objectivity.
Let’s examine three significant scientific models that illustrate the struggle between belief and empirical data.
Section 1.1: From Geocentric to Heliocentric Models
For millennia, humanity has gazed at the night sky, intrigued by the movement of celestial bodies. Initially, it appeared as though the planets, along with the Sun and Moon, revolved around the Earth, giving rise to the geocentric model. Interestingly, the days of the week are named after the five visible planets and the Earth and Moon.
As astronomers gathered more data regarding planetary positions, maintaining the Earth at the center of the universe became increasingly convoluted. This model required complex explanations, such as planets moving in circles upon circles.
In the mid-1500s, figures like Copernicus and Galileo introduced the heliocentric model, positing that the planets orbit the Sun. Despite not being the first to suggest this notion, they championed it fervently. However, the prevailing belief that the Earth could not possibly move around the Sun faced considerable resistance, as many felt it was illogical. Yet, the heliocentric model proved to align far better with observational data than its geocentric predecessor.
The first video, "Revising Explanations with Evidence," delves into how evidence shapes our understanding of scientific models.
Section 1.2: Estimating the Age of the Earth
The question of Earth's age has long intrigued humanity. Some historical estimates, based on biblical calculations, suggested an age of around 7,000 to 9,000 years. However, these figures are grossly inaccurate.
To determine a more precise age, early theories proposed that the Earth cooled from a molten state, estimating its age at 20 to 400 million years. Another method involved analyzing sediment layers, assuming they formed from the bottom up.
The most reliable dating method involves radioactive decay, which allows scientists to compare current quantities of certain elements with their original amounts. This technique, such as carbon dating, provides insights into the timing of geological events.
Even this method isn't foolproof, as scientists lack original rocks from the Earth's formation due to geological transformations over time. However, by examining extraterrestrial rocks, estimates suggest the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old — a figure that far exceeds previous beliefs.
Numerous individuals remain steadfast in their beliefs regarding a young Earth, often dismissing substantial evidence supporting evolutionary science.
Chapter 2: The Reality of Climate Change
Fossil fuels, while highly efficient due to their energy density, have detrimental effects on the environment. They release carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that significantly contributes to climate change, exacerbated by deforestation.
The understanding that CO2 emissions from human activities could alter global temperatures is not a new concept; it was proposed as early as 1938 by Guy Stewart Callendar.
The evidence supporting climate change is overwhelming: rising temperatures, melting glaciers, and increasing sea levels are just a few indicators. Below is a graph illustrating atmospheric CO2 levels over time.
The second video, "Believe You Me: How the Scientific Method Might Change Your Mind," provides insights into the transformative power of scientific inquiry.
In conclusion, whether or not one believes in climate change is irrelevant; the scientific community relies on empirical evidence. Personal sentiments do not influence the harsh realities of scientific inquiry, which is both formidable and fascinating.