Science is the new religion
Over the course of the last few decades, increasing awareness of the advances science has made in explaining the laws of the world has resulted in a mass migration of people away from religions towards a more 'scientific' understanding of the world around them. However, how much of what is commonly portrayed as science is truly in the spirit of science?
The vast majority of the public never reads published papers. The source of science for them, then, is second hand sources available through media outlets, websites and social networks which alter the original content by extrapolating, exaggerating or otherwise manipulating it to make it more appealing and/or fit their own narrative. The end result is a mere shadow of the original - popular science. The spirit of science lies in the questioning of everything, and not accepting the words of another unless proven. Does this unidirectional injection of 'scientific facts' into the public awareness constitute true science? How is science whose very basis is hidden behind insurmountable paywalls for the populace any different than a religion whose faith is beyond reproach?
The 1955 paper of Keys on the relationship between cholesterol intake and heart health was a cornerstone of heart health for the last 50 years after being blown up the then media and has been accepted as fact by the public. However, this was a preliminary study and no further study has shown more than a correlation and the correlation has recently been completely negated with recent reports claiming no evidence of any link between the two. However, with the media not showing any interest in these results, this new nugget of science has yet to reach the populace. When media act as the gatekeepers of science who decide which facts reach the public, does it still count as science?
Science is driven by grants given the governments or private parties for 'exciting' research. What counts as exciting is determined by whether the research yields immediate, palpable results and whether the research appeals to the public. Pure science research, long term research and research which explores new avenues with unknown potential take second seat to research with immediate application. The greatest potential of science is in developing a better understanding the world which as a side effect, would allow for the development of new technologies. Focusing on science which delivers immediate results is short sighted and will only prove to be a detriment in the long term.
The entirety of the electronics industry is founded on a prior and gradual understanding of electrons and electric circuits over the course of more than 200 years.
A crucial part of science is the verification of old results, to prevent biased results which force a narrative. This kind of research also does not yield palpable results but increases the credibility of science as whole and is a necessary component of the scientific method. However, this again takes a backseat to research in the 'next big thing' as that is the only kind of research that is funded. Unless all kinds of research are funded, including verification of old papers, and pure science research, we will run around in circles trying to find new applications within known areas of science instead of exploring outwards into new horizons. Giving control of the direction of research to agencies outside the scientific establishment promotes popular science, and not science.
Much has been written about issues with the publishing industry, and I would suggest a quick google search in this regard. Suffice to say that this industry is sorely in need of a complete reform as the paywalls of this establishment have grown beyond the reach of the richest universities in the world. The world's worst restaurant needs to be shut down!
However, even published papers do not always reveal the data that was used to draw conclusions. How does one question the results of the paper unless the data used to draw the conclusions is available? An influential economics paper in 2010 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w15639) which found a correlation between median growth rate and public debt was later found to have a flaw in the excel formula used in the calculations and the corrected result was a far lower degree of correlation between the two. This however, was only found after a paper in 2013 was published by Herndon et al questioning the results of the 2010 paper. This questioning of prior papers is an essential part of science, and cannot be efficiently done unless all data is shared, as re-collecting the same data to verify papers adds a degree of redundancy. The sharing of data might have been an issue in the past when it was infeasible to exchange large volumes of data over large distances, but, given the rise of the internet, is it not time to bring science into the modern age and open up all science to better questioning?
The crux of the issue of opening up science to the masses, is that science is not just a set of facts describing how the world works, but the ability to question everything we read. Unless the science we read is open to questioning, all we do is replace one set of beliefs with another. The rise of the popularity of science is just a myth. It is the birth of a new religion of popular science with the media acting as the new priests who hear the voice of god.
Over the course of the last few decades, increasing awareness of the advances science has made in explaining the laws of the world has resulted in a mass migration of people away from religions towards a more 'scientific' understanding of the world around them. However, how much of what is commonly portrayed as science is truly in the spirit of science?
The vast majority of the public never reads published papers. The source of science for them, then, is second hand sources available through media outlets, websites and social networks which alter the original content by extrapolating, exaggerating or otherwise manipulating it to make it more appealing and/or fit their own narrative. The end result is a mere shadow of the original - popular science. The spirit of science lies in the questioning of everything, and not accepting the words of another unless proven. Does this unidirectional injection of 'scientific facts' into the public awareness constitute true science? How is science whose very basis is hidden behind insurmountable paywalls for the populace any different than a religion whose faith is beyond reproach?
The 1955 paper of Keys on the relationship between cholesterol intake and heart health was a cornerstone of heart health for the last 50 years after being blown up the then media and has been accepted as fact by the public. However, this was a preliminary study and no further study has shown more than a correlation and the correlation has recently been completely negated with recent reports claiming no evidence of any link between the two. However, with the media not showing any interest in these results, this new nugget of science has yet to reach the populace. When media act as the gatekeepers of science who decide which facts reach the public, does it still count as science?
Science is driven by grants given the governments or private parties for 'exciting' research. What counts as exciting is determined by whether the research yields immediate, palpable results and whether the research appeals to the public. Pure science research, long term research and research which explores new avenues with unknown potential take second seat to research with immediate application. The greatest potential of science is in developing a better understanding the world which as a side effect, would allow for the development of new technologies. Focusing on science which delivers immediate results is short sighted and will only prove to be a detriment in the long term.
The entirety of the electronics industry is founded on a prior and gradual understanding of electrons and electric circuits over the course of more than 200 years.
A crucial part of science is the verification of old results, to prevent biased results which force a narrative. This kind of research also does not yield palpable results but increases the credibility of science as whole and is a necessary component of the scientific method. However, this again takes a backseat to research in the 'next big thing' as that is the only kind of research that is funded. Unless all kinds of research are funded, including verification of old papers, and pure science research, we will run around in circles trying to find new applications within known areas of science instead of exploring outwards into new horizons. Giving control of the direction of research to agencies outside the scientific establishment promotes popular science, and not science.
Much has been written about issues with the publishing industry, and I would suggest a quick google search in this regard. Suffice to say that this industry is sorely in need of a complete reform as the paywalls of this establishment have grown beyond the reach of the richest universities in the world. The world's worst restaurant needs to be shut down!
However, even published papers do not always reveal the data that was used to draw conclusions. How does one question the results of the paper unless the data used to draw the conclusions is available? An influential economics paper in 2010 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w15639) which found a correlation between median growth rate and public debt was later found to have a flaw in the excel formula used in the calculations and the corrected result was a far lower degree of correlation between the two. This however, was only found after a paper in 2013 was published by Herndon et al questioning the results of the 2010 paper. This questioning of prior papers is an essential part of science, and cannot be efficiently done unless all data is shared, as re-collecting the same data to verify papers adds a degree of redundancy. The sharing of data might have been an issue in the past when it was infeasible to exchange large volumes of data over large distances, but, given the rise of the internet, is it not time to bring science into the modern age and open up all science to better questioning?
The crux of the issue of opening up science to the masses, is that science is not just a set of facts describing how the world works, but the ability to question everything we read. Unless the science we read is open to questioning, all we do is replace one set of beliefs with another. The rise of the popularity of science is just a myth. It is the birth of a new religion of popular science with the media acting as the new priests who hear the voice of god.
