I also posted it on the BBC Focus Magazine forum, to invite debate, so that it may be improved in the future.
_____
Wherever you announce yourself as a skeptic, and denounce all crackpots of wild scientific theories, you will inevitably come under fire from those who point out the genius of so-and-so and such-and-such, who were once denounced as quacks and are now proved unquestionably correct. How can you possibly scoff at any offered theories, they will say, when you may be opressing the greatest intellect since Einstein?
It's my perhaps naive view however, if a theory is truly correct it will win out eventually. I don't mean to say that the truth is destined to be found, but rather that often the reason that theories are dismissed is product of the time they are posed in. Take heliocentrism, the idea that the planets revolve around the Sun, and that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. This story has several opressed heroes, from Copernicus to Galileo. The first person to formally pose a heliocentric model was Aristarchus of Samos (c. 270 BC), and the reason it orignally failed to take hold was the inability to recognise at the time how large the universe was, and how far away the stars were. Various philosophers and astronomers in the following centuries attempted to revise the theory, but it wasn't until a full mathematical model (allowing prediction of the positions of the planets) posed by Copernicus that it began to gain steam, and contempt. Over the coming centuries heliocentrism was variously accepted by some sectors of the Church and banned by others, as directly opposing Scripture. Even so, at Copernicus' relatively early time, the slow growth of the theory was more due to his own fears about the possibility of criticsim on philosophical, mathematical and religious fronts, preventing him from publishing his work until the year before his death. As with all good science, heliocentrism grew as observations confirming and enhancing it massed, until the theory accurately described all that was observed, ultimately with the understanding that the Sun was only one of an infinite system of suns we call the universe.
Another problem with condemning skepticism comes from those that assume a certain theory can only ever come from their one revered genius. Again I disagree; consider Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution. Darwin, like Copernicus, was a perfectionist in his work, and spent decades gathering evidence for his theory, knowing that is was a scientific revelation, a 'wild theory' that was likely to come under intense scrutiny and scorn from his peers. But even if scoffing scientists had prevented Darwin from publishing On the Origin of Species, there was already another evolutionary biologist waiting in the wings: Alfred Russel Wallace, who in 1858 proposed a theory of evolution by natural selection, independent of Darwin. Darwin's version only became famous because he had all the extra evidence behind his evetually published work.
Ideas like evoltuon, plate tectonics and an old Earth now seem obvious to us, the evidence is all around us, and as such I think it's foolish to assume we would still be living in the dark if it wasn't for that one bright spark; if things are so obvious they will inevitably be discovered.
Healthy skepticism of revolutionary ideas is necessary, as I want to demonstrate with a contemporary example. Around 13,000 years ago, North American 'megafauna', such as the wooly mammoth, mastodon, and sabre-toothed tiger, went extinct, along with a primitive culture known at the Clovis people. Various and numerous theories for this event have been proposed, from over-hunting and climate change to super-disease. The most recent theory however, first proposed in 2007, has attracted unprecedented attention. This is especially so in the media, since it involves something much more exciting than a cold snap or some germs: meteorites. When I first read the research paper (appropriately first-authored by one Richard Firestone), the evidence seemed overwhelming and compelling; microdiamonds and iridium indicating impact, carbon spherules from space in great concentrations, and charcoal and soot suggesting widespread fires; even if the speculation about possible impact sites raised my eyebrow.
However, I have heard vehement skepticism from many different parites over the past year, including dinner converation at a recent workshop I attended, and magazine coverage in Skeptical Inquirer. Some of these are specific complaints, such as terrestial and non-catastrophic explanations for the impact indicators, and no real evidence of continental-scale fires. My own supervisor even unearthed a purposeful omission of radiocarbon data the original authors made and only published later, in an obscure journal with spurious explanation as to why the dates were 'messed up'. But the most compelling reason to dismiss the theory as sensationalist is that increasingly, evidence points to the extinction of megafauna being gradual, and not sychronous amoung species. Some large mammal species even survived the 'event' althogether; a catastrophic end is unwarranted.
Why is it important for skeptical scientists to bring the full weight of argument against this theory? Because the public shouldn't be fooled into thinking the most exciting hypothesis is necessarily the right one. The American science TV show Nova devoted a whole hour-long episode to the theory in spring 2008, even funding an expedition to Greenland to collect more 'evidence', with few mentions of the numerous controversies and alternative theories.
Skepticism isn't, as some assume, a power-trip, or a way to make sure only your theory advances above others'. Skepticism is primarily to protect those not versed in scientific methods from being fooled, whether it be by homeopathy promising medical benefits it cannot deliver, or by theories which are flashy, and though may be proven correct in the future, at present ride more on their pizzaz than on their proof.
____
No comments:
Post a Comment