Modern scientific theories - is there a science in them?
Watching EuroNews last week, I was annoyed by the constant and annoying “advertising” of global warming theory. Recalling the recent “leakage” of information (if this is, of course, leakage) I would like to raise the topic of modern scientific theories - how much are they really scientific?
We live in the 21st century. At least we think so. Recently, I got sick with the flu, and the medications prescribed by the doctor caused me to doubt. In addition to the standard "vitamins, paracetamol, ambrohexal," the doctor prescribed two more drugs - arbidol and ocillococcinum . If the first has at least some scientific substantiation of efficiency (albeit with an unproved effect), then the second is just a fairy tale, I quote (Wikipedia):
')
That is, for only 300 rubles you get 30 mg of high-quality, French sugar (approved by the Ministry of Health) without any active substance , which, in principle, is equivalent to, for example, going to the shaman or Kashpirovsky, although the latter is at least a psychotherapist. It should immediately make a reservation - I am not against homeopathy or this particular drug, not against Kashpirovsky or Chumak. Everyone is free to choose what he likes. I am opposed to being treated in the 21st century by medieval methods and medicines, whose effectiveness is unproven, and the method of action is not clear.
What is required of a truly scientific theory? First of all, testability. The initial data underlying the scientific theory should be available not only to one group of scientists, but to the entire scientific community as a whole. This will allow, at least, to be confident in the correct processing of data and in the correctness of the conclusions made by one or another author. This item is reasonably well grounded in a video about global warming (more precisely, its absence) prepared by Finnish scientists (Russian subtitles are available, thanks to “ours” in Finland). In short: the source data on which the modern theory of global warming is based is either lost (!!!) or unavailable (the authors refuse to provide source data).
What does the lack of source data mean? Fundamental impossibility to verify the results and conclusions. Especially if the rerun experiment gives slightly different results. I understand when the data are not laid out immediately, but after some time (it is necessary for the experimenter to “take the cream off” himself and prepare the publication). But scientific ethics require that after publication (in which there are conclusions) the source material is provided. If it is not provided, then the value of the conclusions asymptotically tends to zero.
The second criterion — the Popper criterion — requires the existence of an experiment that could theoretically refute this theory. If such an experiment does not exist, then the value of the theory also falls (for example, string theory), because if you can’t put an appropriate experiment, then the theory is irrefutable in principle. Then a paradox can arise - two conflicting theories that are both irrefutable at the same time.
It can be noted that the theory can be refutable, but not in the near future (that is, purely theoretically). To some extent this also falls under the criterion of Popper. Example statement: in 2048, the Earth will collide with the asteroid 2007 VK184. Checked? With difficulty, a theoretical probability exists, but there are few observational data. Therefore, it is possible to publish articles both “for” and “against”, no one will check. And when will be able to check (after 2048) the author, most likely, will be no longer in this world. From here comes another principle - all calculations, including intermediate ones, should be documented and transmitted along with the article itself.
The third criterion is selectivity. Obviously, you can always set up an experiment so that you get the desired result. For example, we are testing the effect of barbaric duck extract on the treatment of acute respiratory infections. We take two groups of people, first we recruit younger and more healthy, the second - the rest. We give the first “type of medicine”, the second - a placebo. The result, I think, will be obvious. The experiment was conducted ..
The fourth criterion is the lack of substitution of concepts. For example, many of you have heard about black holes. However, at the moment, the theory of black holes should be formally attributed to hypotheses. Why? Because no one saw them, no direct experiments. We know that there is a certain object with a strong gravitational field. We know that there is a theoretical object “black hole”, possessing a number of properties, some of which coincide. Why does the observed object coincide with the theoretical one?
Similar (simplified) reasoning: it is known that the beaver has a tail and ears. I see a hare. He has a tail and ears. Therefore, the hare is a beaver.
Unfortunately, a number of modern theories do not satisfy these four criteria. But nevertheless, a number of scientists authoritatively declare them as a fait accompli, which ultimately leads to the treatment of the “extract of the barbarian duck” from the flu, to the “laundering” of huge funds for “global warming” (cooling, underline). These things are, of course, beneficial to companies. For example, producing sugar at a price of 300 rubles. for 30 mg. Or governments, raising the rating due to populist slogans. Moreover, authoritative journals such as Nature refuse to accept articles that do not coincide with the "general line" of the party. God forbid, the article on climate does not mention global warming. There were precedents.
All this combined discredits real science, evidence-based science and blurs the line between truly scientific theories and quackery. And if this continues further, then perhaps in 10 years another enterprising merchant for a couple of billions will purify the water with torsion fields, heal from a photograph, and photographing the aura will become mandatory instead of “medieval” fluorography.
We live in the 21st century. At least we think so. Recently, I got sick with the flu, and the medications prescribed by the doctor caused me to doubt. In addition to the standard "vitamins, paracetamol, ambrohexal," the doctor prescribed two more drugs - arbidol and ocillococcinum . If the first has at least some scientific substantiation of efficiency (albeit with an unproved effect), then the second is just a fairy tale, I quote (Wikipedia):
The manufacturer does not report anything about the mechanism of action of the drug or its pharmacokinetics. Also, there is no evidence of how duck gland extract should suppress influenza viruses. Moreover, ocillococcinum is a preparation of a concentration of 10-400 of the original extract, which, in accordance with the Avogadro number, completely excludes the presence of at least one active substance molecule.
')
That is, for only 300 rubles you get 30 mg of high-quality, French sugar (approved by the Ministry of Health) without any active substance , which, in principle, is equivalent to, for example, going to the shaman or Kashpirovsky, although the latter is at least a psychotherapist. It should immediately make a reservation - I am not against homeopathy or this particular drug, not against Kashpirovsky or Chumak. Everyone is free to choose what he likes. I am opposed to being treated in the 21st century by medieval methods and medicines, whose effectiveness is unproven, and the method of action is not clear.
What is required of a truly scientific theory? First of all, testability. The initial data underlying the scientific theory should be available not only to one group of scientists, but to the entire scientific community as a whole. This will allow, at least, to be confident in the correct processing of data and in the correctness of the conclusions made by one or another author. This item is reasonably well grounded in a video about global warming (more precisely, its absence) prepared by Finnish scientists (Russian subtitles are available, thanks to “ours” in Finland). In short: the source data on which the modern theory of global warming is based is either lost (!!!) or unavailable (the authors refuse to provide source data).
What does the lack of source data mean? Fundamental impossibility to verify the results and conclusions. Especially if the rerun experiment gives slightly different results. I understand when the data are not laid out immediately, but after some time (it is necessary for the experimenter to “take the cream off” himself and prepare the publication). But scientific ethics require that after publication (in which there are conclusions) the source material is provided. If it is not provided, then the value of the conclusions asymptotically tends to zero.
The second criterion — the Popper criterion — requires the existence of an experiment that could theoretically refute this theory. If such an experiment does not exist, then the value of the theory also falls (for example, string theory), because if you can’t put an appropriate experiment, then the theory is irrefutable in principle. Then a paradox can arise - two conflicting theories that are both irrefutable at the same time.
It can be noted that the theory can be refutable, but not in the near future (that is, purely theoretically). To some extent this also falls under the criterion of Popper. Example statement: in 2048, the Earth will collide with the asteroid 2007 VK184. Checked? With difficulty, a theoretical probability exists, but there are few observational data. Therefore, it is possible to publish articles both “for” and “against”, no one will check. And when will be able to check (after 2048) the author, most likely, will be no longer in this world. From here comes another principle - all calculations, including intermediate ones, should be documented and transmitted along with the article itself.
The third criterion is selectivity. Obviously, you can always set up an experiment so that you get the desired result. For example, we are testing the effect of barbaric duck extract on the treatment of acute respiratory infections. We take two groups of people, first we recruit younger and more healthy, the second - the rest. We give the first “type of medicine”, the second - a placebo. The result, I think, will be obvious. The experiment was conducted ..
The fourth criterion is the lack of substitution of concepts. For example, many of you have heard about black holes. However, at the moment, the theory of black holes should be formally attributed to hypotheses. Why? Because no one saw them, no direct experiments. We know that there is a certain object with a strong gravitational field. We know that there is a theoretical object “black hole”, possessing a number of properties, some of which coincide. Why does the observed object coincide with the theoretical one?
Similar (simplified) reasoning: it is known that the beaver has a tail and ears. I see a hare. He has a tail and ears. Therefore, the hare is a beaver.
Unfortunately, a number of modern theories do not satisfy these four criteria. But nevertheless, a number of scientists authoritatively declare them as a fait accompli, which ultimately leads to the treatment of the “extract of the barbarian duck” from the flu, to the “laundering” of huge funds for “global warming” (cooling, underline). These things are, of course, beneficial to companies. For example, producing sugar at a price of 300 rubles. for 30 mg. Or governments, raising the rating due to populist slogans. Moreover, authoritative journals such as Nature refuse to accept articles that do not coincide with the "general line" of the party. God forbid, the article on climate does not mention global warming. There were precedents.
All this combined discredits real science, evidence-based science and blurs the line between truly scientific theories and quackery. And if this continues further, then perhaps in 10 years another enterprising merchant for a couple of billions will purify the water with torsion fields, heal from a photograph, and photographing the aura will become mandatory instead of “medieval” fluorography.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/77553/
All Articles