I’m a physics student in college and I also work as a programmer for the Department of Environmental Quality here in Oklahoma, so believe me when I say, I’m inundated in an atmosphere of real scientists, but it never ceases to amaze me how, when observing society, how many people claim to be on the side of science, or use the term “logical” when the person has absolutely no place using the term.  I’m sorry but anyone who has a degree in Philosophy or Humanities should be barred from using the term all together.  I’ve found the vast majority of them to have a highly subjective definition for “logic”

I guess part of it descends from the attitude of some people to define a term however they damn well please.  Sorry guys, if you can’t prove it, its not real.  Despite the fact that English is an atrocious language (especially our Americanized version of it), words do have definitions and meanings and changing them just gives anyone with better things to do that think up new definitions to words all day a major headache.

I’m also finding a large contingent of people who want to interject their opinion into science.  Someone I know presumed to infer that philosophy had a place in quantum mechanics, saying it could fill in the holes in our knowledge.  I’m sorry but when you’re dealing with something like theoretical physics, no answer is better than a wrong answer.  Proponents of this idea may say that it might not be wrong, but the chances of that are extremely remote, for every 1 thing you get right, you’ll get 999 wrong, if not a whole lot more.  Look at String “Theory”

There also seems to be a large contingent that presume themselves to be experts in the field after reading a few books on the topic, or worse yet an evanescence, a so called one-hit-wonder where they systematically become more intelligent than someone with formal education and experience in the field.

And the last two are my favorites.  A. The people that argue you can’t argue with numbers and B. people who don’t understand the flaws and limitations of the scientific process.

Before I get into what’s going on, let me take every point step by step and we’ll see each person debunked.  Going in reverse, “what’s wrong with the scientific process?” you might ask.

Well, the process itself is not the problem, its the introduction of a human element as an observer that is.  Without even getting into the argument that humans can be partial or biased, its invariably clear that humans are fallible and that our 5 senses of observation can and will fail us.  We need the use of specialized equipment in an extreme majority of cases and if not, we just hypothesize using mathematics (REAL logic).  However, this doesn’t always hold together.  Examples include the Goldbach Conjecture, the Higgs Boson, and even time (with time, it should be possible to move in multiple directions of it, according to the Godel Metric).

But alas, the scientific process is inhibited by the weight of human fallacy further in that our specialized equipment itself, does fail.  Humans are far from being able to avoid errors, and it should be noted that there are problems with the scientific process.  How many times have you caught yourself yelling at the TV during an episode of Myth Busters because they’re doing something incorrectly?  Happens to me frequently, like the episode where they tried to verify if water was bulletproof, but they couldn’t quite explain why the larger the calibre of the weapon, the shorter the distance the round went.  The answer has to do with the extreme surface tension of the water, the high energies at which the rounds are fired, and the surface area to which the rounds impact the water with (mostly the first and the last, with modern portable weaponry, there’s probably not a huge difference in the coefficients of energy between mass and muzzle velocity).  Was there a problem with their observations or the experiment itself?  Not from what I could see, but there was a breakdown in their ability to interpret the data.

Now you might say “they did effectively produce an outcome which answered the initial question” but sometimes data output does not effectively allow for interpretation of the data.  The vast majority of people can observe the data themselves but lack the proper knowledge to effectively interpret that data.  Take for instance one of my own lab reports.  Compare this lab report which includes all of the details and an analysis section and compare its usability to this data output report.  If you’ve had some science you can probably interpret the data but ultimately the lab report on density is probably a heck of a lot easier to interpret than the equilibrium of 2-dimensional concurrent forces report because it includes an analysis and conclusions prepared by a well qualified individual (albeit this is incredibly simple stuff, but you have to go through pre-reqs at some point; oh and please don’t flame me for calling Cartesian Vectors “X-Y Vector Components”).

Lets take another example, Doppler radar.  You might be able to make heads-or-tails of this (especially if you’re Oklahoman; people out here are really tuned into the weather because of the large storms we get) but you might not be able to interpret this data as effectively as say, a meteorologist.

But what if data is self-intuitive like the MythBuster’s episode data.  Well the problem is the lack of a descriptive analysis by a well-qualified individual could lead to ludicrous assertions based on that information.  Since the 9mm traveled farther than the .50-cal, it could be assumed that larger objects will not travel well through water, but we do have torpedoes and submarines, granted at a much lower speed than the bullets, but there’s also the aspect of structural integrity that needs to be discussed as to why submarines and torpedoes will operate fine above and bellow the water’s surface.  Bullets themselves are typically made of lead (because of its high mass per unit matter) with a metal coating.  However, lead is a very soft metal, which goes into the point of the bullet itself in that its designed to rapidly expand on impact, thus dramatically increase its surface area and dissipate its energy quickly, whereas a torpedo is made out of a much harder and stronger metal which will resist expansion in order to minimize its energy dissipation on its surface in order to maximize its propellant energy.

But the question still got answered right?  Water is bulletproof, well yes and no.  They proved that a 9mm will fire farther into the water than a .50-cal but bulletproof is ambiguous.  What if you’re running from somebody and they happen to be using a crossbow.  Unlikely yes, but you’re unable to make the determination as to whether the bolt itself will penetrate the water far enough to strike you.  You could make the fatal assertion that the bolt behaves as do the bullets and only dive in a few feet, whereas a lower-energy more aerodynamic bolt from a crossbow could possibly penetrate much further.

So the [female dog] is in the details.

Does this mean that our data is useless?  No, quite the opposite, we just need to understand that not every observation is absolute, especially when axioms themselves are not definitely true (like Euclid’s Fifth Postulate on Parallel Lines, which states that parallel lines will never intersect, a well regarded axiom, but doesn’t apply in the world of non-euclidian geometry where parallel lines do intersect).

Just because something isn’t readily apparent though doesn’t mean it cannot exist.  If it can be logically inferred and there exist no more plausible and observable alternatives then it commands itself a hypothesis worth investigating.  Like they said in Star Trek “once you remove the impossible the only remaining, no matter how implausible, must be true”

What about those who say you can’t argue with numbers.  Well regard my previous argument about the fallacies of the scientific process and they apply equally well in this context as well.  Its also worth mentioning that statistics are derived from sample data, if you’ve had a class in statistics you’ll know that its very infeasible and impractical to gather data from massive datasets.  However despite our best attempts, data still gains a bias towards a given output.  Take the thought experiment whereby the Federal government decides to help out the economy in the Northeast by imposing a protective-tariff on an imported good.  Whereby the rest of the country would likely be opposed to such a bill because it increased the prices for them, but ultimately helps a given region.  Theoretically, the margin would be near 100% in favor within the northeast, and near 100% opposition outside of the northeast (subject to a lot of variables I know).  Well say this bill only effected the Northeast, and the historic south.  The Northeast has a far greater population and thus more votes in the House of Representatives, but say that historic border states and midwestern states allied with the South, at this point there would be more states allied with the south and thus more votes in the Senate.  Which statistic would matter?  Well its a complex topic.  Being impartial would be quite difficult and require a rather large dataset just for a simple sample.  Thus one can see that the sampling metric is more difficult than initially intended and thus the output data is going to be biased in a given favor.

Well what about the people that just read books on the topic.  Mostly the lack of challenge.  I doubt there are any of these people who read college textbooks in these given topics.  They put me to sleep most of the time, but they contain all of the necessary details, whereas your normal Barnes-and-Nobles “paperback”  only contains “interesting” information conveyed in a manner meant to educate the layperson (usually, I have Kurt Godel’s “On Formally Undecidable Propositions” which is significantly more than a weekend reader, but that’s not your standard Barnes-and-Noble paperback either).  The logic behind this is extremely simple.  Both the author and/or the book publisher aim to maximize their target audience and thus see the largest return on their investment.  Simple economics.  Rarely will these books go in levels either, they’ll typically contain a baseline introduction and then go into differing topics book-to-book, which is in contrast to most textbooks which are leveled.

Further the “weekenders” (as I’ll call them) lack any drive to learn every excruciating detail about a given topic.  If you’re reading a paperback, unlikely will you ever run into the advanced mathematical proofs or theorems which both prove and help work equations in applications.  Rarely will any weekender memorize this information and even more rarely will they ever use it.  Formally educated persons will memorize every bit of this information because its probably going to be on a test   Plus with Physics research addendums are usually required for a degree so there is a point where you’re “thrown to the lions” so to speak and have to fend for yourself in a practical application of what you’ve learned (the addition of professors being nearby helps aid the overall experience by adding educated perspective and experience too).

Now please don’t confuse weekenders with self-educated scientists.  I’m sure there is a very small contingent of scientists in active research who are entirely or at least partially self-educated (probably can say most scientists are at least somewhat self-educated in some regards), but reading Incompleteness by Rebecca Goldstein does NOT make you an expert in math (actually quite the opposite, she’s a philosophy professor first off so she approaches the whole aspect of incompleteness (basically, you can’t prove the consistency of a given logical system from within that same logical system) incorrectly, but also spends exorbitant amounts of time giving Godel’s biography).

And what about those who want to interject their own opinions into science.  Well this would effectively defeat the entire purpose behind science (as an observable topic, governed by the scientific process) and turn it into a pseudo-science like Philosophy or metaphysics.  A good example of injection of opinion by otherwise logically sound scientists and individuals is the idea of “nuclear winter” where, although theoretically possible, the chance of which is extremely remote.  Carl Sagan and Soviet Scientists were the key proponents of these theories but were ultimately bound to cause political attrition to the west and thus de-proliferate nuclear weaponry.  The goal never was that nuclear winter was real but to remove the public’s desire to use nuclear weapons (well, Carl Sagan might actually have believed it to be true, but the soviet scientists were surely bound).  I don’t think any further elaboration is necessary.

And finally, people who would like to redefine words on their own terms without regard to its proper meaning.  This is a bit complex of an argument because we do indeed change the meanings of words over time whether incidentally or purposefully.  Ultimately however, the problem itself has to do with consistency.  Not consistency as in “usage from person to person” but a mathematical version of consistency whereby the system is actually usable.  If terms continue to be defined on an “as wanted” basis, its removes its mathematical consistency and thus the ability to form logically sound statements (you can’t add 4 and chair can you? if you do its a highly arbitrary method for doing so).

Ultimately I think a lot of the problem is people have hysterical logic, id est, very subjective, emotion-influenced logic, if it can even be called logic at this point.  Society, I think, is placing an extremely heavy emphasis on emotion and pathos (id est, an unjustifiable appeal to emotion in arguments, most commonly seen with politicians; for example, “we need to emphasize family values” well they never quite define what that is nor why we need to define it, and trust me, its far from an axiom).

The explosion of reality TV in recent years is a superb testament to this aspect.  The entire driving force behind it being “drama” and emotional outbursts in a so called “realistic” setting.  Sure, it can be funny to watch some blonde bimbo blow up on a brunette after she slept with the man-meat of the show, but really people, are we producing a bit too much smog in our brains?

My conclusion on the issue however, is not so much a tirade on the decline of intelligence within society so much as one warning/asking people to look harder into the details and ask yourself, before you start blabbing around about it, is this data correct and is the interpretation plausible?  Charles Dawkins, for instance, is a very good ethos source on biology and evolution because that’s what his field is in.  However, contrary to popular belief, evolution and creationism are unlikely to be mutually exclusive and thus Dawkins has no further basis for assuming the lack of the existence of a creator.  His assertions, further would not override the assertions of a logician like Kurt Godel who claims “I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife.” (src)  who is more likely to have a more sound logical assertion for the existence of a god based on his own observations in raw logic than Richard Dawkins (or any of the Intelligent Design proponents like William Dembsky) who believe evolution and creationism to be mutually exclusive and found their arguments around this one single assertion even though it has a very shaky foundation (its another pathos argument, people automatically assume that just because you think evolution exists, you can’t believe that the universe was created and vice versa, there is little, if any, justification for this).

That’s it, hopefully you’ve pulled something from this useful.