 |
| Source: The Economist |
I have four previous posts about BICEP2 and how the initial roll out (i.e. announcement) was heady for some; aggrandizement for others.
This next to the last paragraph at the bottom of The Economist sums it succinctly:
Rowing back on a triumphant announcement about the first instants of creation may be a little embarrassing, but the saga is a useful reminder of how science works. There is no suggestion that anyone has behaved dishonourably. Admittedly, the BICEP team’s original press conference looks, with hindsight, seriously overconfident. More information-sharing between the various gravitational wave-hunters, all of whom guard their data jealously, might have helped tone down the triumphalism. But science, ideally, proceeds by exactly this sort of good-faith argument and honourable squabbling—until the weight of evidence forces one side to admit defeat.
Now, the last paragraph points to a joint paper that's coming from the European Planck Telescope & BICEP2, (open adversaries to) the BICEP2 team. This seems confusing to those that would use this to point to scientific findings as "just theory," and if the scientists were so sure, they wouldn't change their minds on it. It atomizes the academy and politicizes reported results.
This however, is the nature of science and how it works.
There has to be an understood release to public scrutiny - not at all like (emphasis: unequal to) opinions trolled on Social Media - but peer review, which can be brutal for the uninitiated.
Whatever your findings are, become vetted by like-trained professionals who will first attempt to: 1. Read and understand your report and its results; 2. Using the conditions you've described in your paper, attempt to simulate and/or duplicate or get statistically close to your reported results within an acceptable percent error range.
The pseudosciences are not apt to subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny, often becoming openly hostile to any challenge to their veracity. The projected accusation is usually the scientific community is close-minded, reactionary and projecting a "religion of secular humanism."
All scientists are not humanists, that is a generalization. However, for a field to call itself a "science," it must be willing to allow this kind of public scrutiny, and if proven wrong: acquiescence to the prevailing evidence. Otherwise, it is mere notion and political canard for manipulation of a public that wishes to hear it for their own comfort at the sacrifice of their advancement and empowerment.
How Stuff Works:
How The Scientific Method Works
Scientific Method Steps
Scientific Method Videos
History of the Scientific Method
#P4TC: Ibn al-Haytham
Comments