W.Thornhill: Equipping the Public & the Essential Role of the Citizen Scientist

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.
User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

W.Thornhill: Equipping the Public & the Essential Role of the Citizen Scientist

Unread post by Brigit » Mon Feb 20, 2023 9:35 pm

Wal Thornhill wrote in "It's Time for a Change," (Feb 2009):

  • A Time for Change in Science Education

    Many other “scientific facts” like “black holes” and the “big bang” are merely flawed mathematical constructs. They have not been observed. Teachers and students should be conscious that mathematics operates in a “virtual reality” and is not to be confused with science, which relies on real-world observation, measurement and experiment. Mathematics describes behavior, it doesn’t explain. To make matters worse, mathematicians routinely demonstrate confusion and lack of rigor in their use of language when defining mathematical terms.
    • “I have no reason to believe that the human intellect is able to weave a system of physics out of its own resources without experimental labor. Whenever the attempt has been made it has resulted in an unnatural and self-contradictory mass of rubbish.”
      —Basil Mahon, The Man Who Changed Everything: The Life of James Clerk Maxwell
    So in science curricula the emphasis should not be on “facts” but on clear thinking and skepticism, along with the history of key scientific debates and the philosophy of science. But the most important lesson is that the basic mysteries remain. And it is the many mysteries that can motivate students and the public to take an active interest in science again. As the biologist Rupert Sheldrake has remarked, “by giving up the pretence that the ultimate answers are already known, the sciences will be freer—and more fun.”

    I agree. It is time for change and more fun!
It is easy to misconstrue or misrepresent a scientist who offers routine criticisms of the way that maths are used in the sciences, yet for the attentive listener and observer, it is helpful to be given a few other perspectives on the mathematical proofs, models, solutions and statistics that have overtaken the sciences.

The public does have need, more than ever, of clarifying and identifying the mathematics behind the science releases. Was there a computer model of a natural process used? Where is the code? And what was the R0? Were there statistical arguments made, but hard and fast conclusions drawn? Is the mathematical solution to an observed phenomenon really validation of the physical explanation on offer?

There are so many questions that can be asked, but for critics to suggest that questioning the underpinning of math within a scientific theory is to reject mathematics altogether is a red herring. As the saying goes, "Abuse does not preclude proper use", or, "misuse does not remove use." This is simply an axiom stating that "just because something can be, or has been, abused, does not mean that it must be, or always is. Abuse does not, in itself, justify denial of use." Measurements and calculations are essential to quantitative descriptions and research in science. But there can be many quantitative approaches to solving the same problem, and qualitative studies can have as many variations as there are individuals on this earth.

So to equip and inspire the public with some means of rational criticism of mathematics, without having to be professional mathemetitians, is a worthwhile pursuit and a necessary one for the future of science.

But more fundamentally, what is being suggested here is that it is the public who has one of the biggest roles to play in the future of the sciences. According to this article by Wal Thornhill, the public isn't just meant to provide passive support to the experts, nor to simply pony up the constant funding demands of the scientific agencies, nor is it even just to stand in vigilance of the possible misuse of mathematics and mathematical terms and variables. "The most important lesson is that the basic mysteries remain. And it is the many mysteries that can motivate students and the public to take an active interest in science again. As the biologist Rupert Sheldrake has remarked, 'by giving up the pretence that the ultimate answers are already known, the sciences will be freer—and more fun.'"

For those so inclined and interested in the basic mysteries of the physical universe, no one is obligated to accept dominant explanations favored by experts, even one so revered as Einstein. And finally, as Wal Thornhill also often observed: "History shows that many revolutionary breakthroughs have come from individuals, often self-taught ‘eminent outsiders,’ who see problems through ‘beginner’s eyes.’" It's right that the public take an active interest in the sciences, question the mathematics when needed, and be encouraged to possibly take up the experimental labors of the citizen scientist.




Thx, and...a few questions raised.

Are the present scientific theories given in textbooks and scientific institutions, journals, and publications complete and correct...or do the basic mysteries remain?

Are you personally adequate to the task of questioning mathematical proofs, models, solutions and statistics in scientific theories? Why or why not?

Have citizen scientists played a role in important scientific discoveries in the past? Would you consider their role to be a majority role, or a minor one, just a lucky fluke here and there?

What are some examples?

Do citizen scientists include inventors?
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JPeterS and 3 guests