Have you ever realized we don't know why things fall down?

In earlier times, the philosophers who studied nature thought things "sought their own level", so that items which were made up mostly of earth sank to the lowest level, those things mostly water sank to a level slightly above that, and fiery and airy matter tended to rise. (I confess to not recalling if air or fire rose higher, I think it was air, but my medieval physics is a bit rusty.)

Obviously, we have long since grown beyond that level, and have developed the concept of gravity and made everything quite scientific.

Except that we still have no idea what "gravity" is. We can quantify the force it exerts, we can predict it with great accuracy, but we have no idea what gravity is. Currently most prefer either the space curvature or graviton particle theory. The problem is that both explain some facts, but neither works with the other. (I favor space curvature, but I have a real personal grudge against Heisenberg. Of course, I have almost as big a grudge against Einstein, so that probably doesn't explain everything. -- And don't ask me to explain this, as it is too silly for me to explain to anyone. Just accept that I have an irrational dislike for two of the big names of physics.)

But my point is, just like the medieval philosophers, we have an abundance of theory, and we have a fancy name, but we still have no idea why things fall down.

I am sure scientists will take exception to my description, but it is true. That we have theories and have confirmed some aspects with experimentation puts us not a whit ahead of the medieval philosophers, as they had theories and experiments as well. That their theories proved wrong is no mark against them, as doubtless one of our two theories, if not both, will be proved wrong some day as well. (As they are contradictory, at least one will inevitably prove wrong.)

My point here is not to insult scientists or denigrate modern science. I am quite a fan of science, even majored in physics for a time in college before some unrelated matters led to me changing universities, which necessitated changing majors¹. So I have no interest in saying that science is not worthy of respect or admiration. My point is much more simple, that we must recognize that, as much as we know, there is even more we do not know. And that just because something is "scientific" does not mean that it has been fully explained.

I bring this up because, to a degree, I am seeing a revival of the early 20th century style fetish of science, the belief that science will eventually solve all problems and perfect everything. While this may be true, to a degree, in matters purely technical, it becomes absurd when wrongly applied. Or when it leads us to attribute excessive certainty to findings simply because of our faith in science.

Perhaps I should give some examples of where science should not be applied.

I wrote earlier of one example, the attempt to claim that science has "proved" there is no G-d. That is simply absurd arrogance on the part of atheists. No scientist worth the name would even make such a claim. Theology is inherently outside the scope of science. As the existence of G-d is not falsifiable, it cannot be tested scientifically, so no true scientist should make any claims about proving or disproving it. A scientist is free to express his personal opinion, but that does not make it any more valuable than the opinion of a layman.

I should probably add that I would be equally dismissive of any claims to have "scientifically" proved G-d's existence, but I am not aware of any modern claims of having done so. Perhaps on the very fringe of the ID movement someone has made some claims of having such proof, but I am unaware of them if they have been made. It seems most such claims, at least today, tend toward disproving rather than proving the divine. Should that change, then I will be every bit as vocal in denouncing claims from the other side of the argument. As I said, proof is impossible in either direction, at least as far as science is concerned.

Another example of applying "science" to the wrong matters is the belief that the economy can be scientifically managed. This has largely been debunked, except for our obsession with having a "managed" currency. But, as I have already written so much on this, I shall leave that alone for the moment. Suffiice it to say, that economics, while subject to regular phenomena, is not a good field for the application of "technological solutions". Scientific management of the economy always proves a disaster.
 
And, if science is harmful when wrongly applied, it can do even more harm when properly applied, but granted too much credence. One lesson we must learn over and over again, is that the trappings of science do not guarantee that the results will be accurate. People can also use the appearance of science to lie.

A perfect example of this is in the realm of environmental policy. I wrote earlier about the unspoken motives of the environmental movement, and how they use a rather ill-defined set of beliefs to push an anti-human agenda, but that is not so relevant here. The motives are still the same, as all of their actions are still aimed at destroying modern technology, or, at the very least, reducing our standard of living, but the "scientific environmentalists" do not use the fuzzy "love of nature" rhetoric of the rest of the movement, they tend to use apparently pragmatic arguments to achieve the same goals.

The best example, of course, is anthropogenic global warming. Those pushing this theory do not say they are protecting nature or anything of that sort, instead they argue that by releasing carbon dioxide man is making the Earth uninhabitable. By disguising themselves as hard-headed pragmatists they largely avoid the impression most have of environmentalists as impractical and a bit peculiar. However, whatever their claims, the AGW supporters are no different from the rest of the environmental movement, as I suggested in my earlier essay. The fact that they are not pushing for nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions should be enough proof of that.

So, how does AGW fit into the rest of my essay? Quite simply. Though many of those pushing the party line that man's carbon dioxide emissions (and other gases as well) are causing the earth to warm are scientists, that does not mean what they are doing is actually science. For example, the computer models used to predict global warming a perfect example of using supposed "science" to cover up a lack of evidence. We simply do not know enough about the complex engine that causes global weather patterns, and our models reflect this. They have to be adjusted constantly just to predict the correct weather one day in advance, yet the AGW supporters present their predictions about future years as if it were proven. We simply do not know enough to predict accurately what the result of carbon dioxide will be, and an honest scientist would say so².

And that is where our confusion over the limits of science get in our way. Having seen such an explosion in computer science, along with a slightly less rapid expansion in the physical sciences, we are quite willing to believe that scientists can write a computer model that accurately reflects every influence on the weather across the globe. 

While I have a lot of faith in science, I doubt that any such model could be developed anytime in the near future. First, it would either require a computer much larger than is currently possible, or else would require a massive simplification which would make it much less accurate. Second, even were the computer available on which to run it, we simply do not yet know enough to produce a reliable model. Not only do we have too little understanding of obvious things such as how ocean currents will change with increasing heat and how that will effect the heating of the earth, we simply do not yet know all of the  terrestrial phenomena which can have an effect on the weather. And, once we continue beyond the atmosphere, there are even more factors we do not completely understand, such as sun spot cycles, or variations in solar luminosity, which can clearly change the weather on earth. As I argued from the start, we simply do not know enough.

Now, were this any other field of science, the limits of our knowledge would be enough to prevent any researcher form making any but the most guarded statements. We would not be hearing "the end is nigh!" but would be hearing "some models show a tendency toward warming when greenhouse gases increase, but much more research is needed".

However, I am sure, there are some few readers who will disagree with me. They will argue that, yes the information may not be complete, but as the evidence shows warming may be possible, why should we not do everything in our power to stop it. After all, the consequences are so horrible that even a remote risk should be addressed.

But such a position is wrong for two related different reasons.

First, precautions only make sense if the cost to prevent it is less than the cost of  the negative outcome adjusted by the probability of failure. Admittedly, the cost of global warming is great³, but we have to adjust this by the probability of such an outcome. As the models are so very speculative, it is almost impossible to create a fair estimate of what the probability of such an outcome is, but, if we base our estimates of probability on how often such models provide accurate predictions of the immediate future, or correctly extrapolate from present conditions to past conditions, we have to assume the risk is almost zero. Thus, we would not be justified in taking action unless the cost were incredibly small. As the proposed solutions basically involve destroying our entire industrial economy, I can't see the probability of the model being right justifying the proposed solution.

Of course, even that argument is unnecessary. As the science on which the models are based is so very speculative, and as the models have proved so horribly flawed, basing any sort of ration risk assessment on them is just absurd. It is as if I wrote a computer model that predicted giant bunny attacks in five years and asked for funding to prevent it. As the weather models used to predict AGW cannot even extrapolate today's weather from that of last week, the predictions they produce do not even qualify as a possibility. Anything these models produce is simply speculation, and we cannot base economic decisions on simple speculation.

All of which is a much more wordy way of saying what I did at the start. We have very impressive science, but it also has limits. When we surpass those limits, it is the duty of responsible scientists to say so, whether the mistake is in applying science to improper matters or in claiming greater certainty than science can currently provide.

That pseudo-science, such as "scientific" denials of G-d, "scientific" management of currency⁴, or the "science" of AGW have remained in the public eye for so long, and have done so without being challenged, shows that our scientists are not doing their job.

--------------------------------------------------------

1. For those who insist on embarrassing revelations or who will be tempted to say I left the hard sciences due to some lack of aptitude here are the details. I had an adviser who was one of those people hired for research rather than teaching. He was on campus 2 hours a week and could never be found, as he seemed to find his students and those he advised burdensome. As I could not find him despite weeks of trying, I forged his signature rather than miss registration. Apparently, though he had no time for students, he had time to check his signature on registration forms, as I was caught in my misdeed, which led to me changing universities. As I ended up at a liberal arts and business school, I graduated in history rather than chemistry and physics which had been my major.

2.  I am leaving aside the actual deceptions, such as the "hockey stick" graph, which has been quite effectively debunked. For those interested in MUCH more thorough handling of the topic, I suggest junkscience.com the best site I have seen dealing with not just AGW but all manner of bogus environmental science (as well as other topics such as food scares).

3. Actually, the cost is great if we assume that global warming proceeds out of control. Should there only be an increase of a few degrees before reaching some sort of stable state, then global warming may be beneficial. Though some AGW proponents deny it, the earth was warmer in the early middle ages, and it appears that man did quite well under those slightly warmer conditions. So the cost is actually subject to other considerations, but you will never hear that from global warming advocates.

4. No, I do not think physicists should be telling us to return to the gold standard. By scientists, I mean economist in this context. Through their continued adherence to Keynesian and neo-Keynesian theory and belief in a "scientifically" managed currency, they are letting us down in this regard as much as the physical scientists are in allowing AGW advocates to continue misrepresenting science.

----------------------------------------------------------

NOTE (04/18/2008)

Reading this, I expect that someone will mock me for attributing gravitons to Heisenberg. I am aware of what Heisenberg did and did not do, but, as his theories are prominent in modern quantum theories, I tend to view all of those theories as being related to Heisenberg, as I view all later relativistic theories as being related to Einstein. I should really view all quantum theories as related to Planck, but I have no feelings either way about Planck, so quantum theories get tarred with my negative impression of Heisenberg instead. (I do actually have a few reservations about the uncertainty principle, as I do about general relativity [mainly concerning whether foreshortening is real of perceived], but this is not the place to go into those question.)

Also, I realize there are probably some recent theories which have supplanted gravitons in certain circles, but I do not follow physics that closely, so I am unaware of the most recent theories. As far I know gravitons, or some variant thereof, are the most widely accepted mechanism for explaining gravity which does not rely on space curvature. If I am wrong, I am sure someone will correct me.