Faith in science.?

Question

I watch alot of science programs on the Discovery channel, and I've notice alot that the scientist on these programs won't really explain how they came up with thier conclusions. For example, I was watching a episode about alternate universes, and they explained that membranes from two universes collided which created the big bang. But they never explained what the membrane was. They never gave any information on how they came to the conclusion that there is more than one universe other than "It fits into thier mathmatical equations" and so forth. Now, I'm a diehard atheist who believes in science, but it seems here lately, at least on T.V. that the scientist want us to acept thier conclusion based on faith (faith in them.) Isn't there some laymens way to just explain these things so people who don't study physics can understand it?

Answer 1

I think the main problem isn't that they're accepting things on faith, but that the frontier of science is now so big and so far away from everyday life, especially in physics, that it has become quite difficult to explain cutting-edge theories to people who aren't themselves physicists. 'Everything pulls on everything else.' is so much easier to understand than 'There are 11 dimensions, but 8 of them are folded around outside our Universe, and each of them has a different energy level usually differing from our own by a factor of something with about sixteen digits, and we know all this because {x|x =/= (y^(e*pi))/(i^(2^0.5))}U{y|y > (x^x)/(2/(x^y))} = (ex-iy)^2pi.'.

Answer 2

First, M-theory is pure speculation at this point. About the only good thing going for it is that it 'explains' the big bang. Most scientists are very skeptical of it unless and until it can make verifiable predictions, which at this point, it simply can't. The same goes for string theory and to a large extent, supersymmetry. Unfortunately, those 'science' shows get paid for glitzy 'woo-hoo' stuff rather than solid science.

Even on the stuff that is very well established (for example, the big bang and evolution), it is incredibly hard to explain to that 'barmaid' why the theory predicts what it does, how it differs from competing theories, and how to interpret the evidence that has been uncovered. We can point to the microwave background radiation, but to really explain why it supports the big bang viewpoint requires some pretty detailed statistical mechanics. To go further and explain why the anisotropies in that background point to an inflationary scenario is almost impossible without some pretty heavy math (which most of the audience simply won't understand). Similar concerns arise with comparative anatomy (when most people don't know any *human* anatomy to speak of).

Don't expect the real deal on popular science shows, or even popular science magazines. If you want to know why scientists believe what they do, learn some calculus, differential equations, statistics, tensor analysis and differential geometry and actually read what they say. Then look at the actual experiements and measurements they have done to support their results. And, truthfully, stay away from branes until they can make an actual prediction that has a chance of being measured in the next century.

Answer 3

The problem is that the people making the TV programme can't afford to take the time to give a detailed explanation, as they know that most people will just turn to another channel.
The scientists would be only too pleased to give you a detailed explanation, but don't expect to be able to understand without a lot of hard work.
If you are really interested in these subjects, start finding specialist publications like New Scientist or Scientific American.
If their articles are not enough, they will usually quote the technical paper source. It might be freely available but you might need to go to a University library to get access.

And don't forget that these are just theories. Maybe you can come up with a better one?

Answer 4

Science is a complex system, and each type of science has its own vocaulary and language. The concepts can be very difficult to understand for someone who does not have the basics under their belt, and they have simplified what they say on programs to a lowest common denominator. For regular programming, they aim at a fourth grade level. For documentary/science programming they aim at an eighth to tenth grade level. If they went right into how they speak to one another, almost no one except those in the field would understand, and they are not into watching documentaries about their science, they are doing it.

If you want to know more, you might consider taking a college course at the local jr. or community college.

Yes, science is about faith, faith in the TRUTH!

Answer 5

Considering that the brane collision theory is just one of many proposed explanations for the big bang, and to my knowledge no empirical test has yet been done that can distinguish between them, these scientists would have to be incredibly irresponsible to portray this theory^H^H^H^H^H^H hypothesis as though it were settled science. My guess is that these scientists were just speculating about one of the many possibilities, and the discovery channel omitted all their caveats because it makes for better television. This is especially likely given that this episode discussed alternate universes, as we have NO empirical evidence whatsoever for alternate universes, not even a single observation that is better explained by postulating them, and the absolute strongest statement a scientist can make about them is "they are not proven to be inconsistent with the known laws of physics." As such, if you want to make a television episode seriously discussing this possiblity, you have to pretty much ignore any discussion of the actual facts and let your science fiction writers do the talking.

The moral of this story is: the discovery channel's version of science has as much to do with actual science as Fullmetal Alchemist has to do with alchemy.

Answer 6

Well, this is the problem that you run into in explaining these things to people without a background in the field. You have to distill the material to just the conclusions.

It turns out that there are very good reasons these scientists believe what they do, but it cannot be easily explained in the course of a few minutes on TV.

-Tom

Answer 7

AH HAH! Now you see (or should understand) why many Christians find it easier and more reliable to have faith in God than in scientists "evolution". There are so many holes and air bubbles much of what they claim are based on 50% hypotheticals per subject and 50% randomization.

They would have to show absolute hard core data - not made up tribal existence of Lucy or the Hobbit creatures. From what I've read and seen, it is all guess work what a hobbit is, based on "similarities" to humans, not fact. The life style of the hobbit (and other so called hominids) are also "guess work" passed off as if fact.

If science hit hard core irrefutable evidence, THEN, I will listen with an open mind and I would expect many others would as well. Making up origins of the two big rocks (or membranes or whatever) and then having to make up another tale for the origins of the matter that comprise these subjects, then creating another tale of fancy to cover the explanation for the matter and .....

Its like the a-typical.., One lie needs a bigger lie, which needs a bigger lie, which needs a bigger lie to give some resemblance of the truth.

Faith in God does not need lies and more lies thrown in and much easier to trust. The way I view it, God is the ultimate supreme being who exists on a level mankind can not fully grasp, whose technology is beyond our the scope of our bests mind's comprehension level.

Answer 8

A fundamental truth of the human condition is that we exist as a point in space and time.

We personally have very limited understanding of the past and can only speculate on the future. We apply what we experience with the assumption that similar circumstances will produce similar results.

Society has provided the structure required to leverage each other's talents and abilities. So our communal knowledge is greater than the sum of the individual, because we learn from each other.

But therein lies the rub: because we learn not by doing but by trusting. I trust that my high school physics teacher was right when he instructed me on kinetics. I didn't formulate the theory myself, nor did I prove out much of what I was taught. I believed in what the teacher told me.

They say seeing is believing. So belief without seeing then is faith.

I used to be an atheist myself. When I was a teen I argued with my wise old grandmother on the existence of God. Of course, I could not prove the non-existence of God any more than she could prove His existence. We were at an impasse. That's when she pointed out my inability to prove any of the theory that supported my faith in science.

Answer 9

Many theorists would agree that "if you can't explain it to a bar maid, then you don't understand it well enough yourself." When you speak of multiverse or string theories, you're talking about theory. While I agree that those two theories are "way out there," it does help if you have a basic understanding of quantum physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and relativity. M-Theory (the membrane thing) has its foundation in superstring theory, which is very robust, imaginative, and I'll never understand it. Oh, well.

Answer 10

I think too many times Discovery and TLC have programs about pseudo science and it "scientists" are quacks that the main stream scientific community does not take seriously.

I am not sure about the show you are referring to, but don't always think that everything on TV is accepted science.