Following up a discussion at Dr. Free-Ride's on the question of what makes science--is it peer review bestowing an "accurate" stamp, or just an attitude?
I'll place my marker on the bingo square marked Attitude.
Sure, your own investigation of why your vacuum has ceased function is not publication-worthy; you might not even be right when you conclude it's motor burn-out, nor when you hypothesize that said motor burn-out (if true) was probably due to an excess of cat hair build-up.
But it's the fact that you took the vacuum to pieces, identified the components from common sense and the internet, tested each component to the best of your abilities, and located a plausible source of the issue that makes you a scientist.
(Bonus science points awarded if you took the step of removing the matted cat fur, replacing the motor, and testing your hypothesis; but since motors are ridiculously expensive compared to new vacuums, we did not push that far.)
One of my good friends is a terrific scientist, always alive with inquiry. We once went to an organ concert, with the organ on stage in full view. I gazed with happy mystification at the stops and pedals. My friend said, "Man, it just makes you want to go down and push everything to figure out what does what, huh?"
For that remark alone, she deserves the title of scientist.
Peer-review and concerns about replicability? That's nice and all, but that's for Cutting-edge Important Stuff. Science in your daily life is an attitude, an approach, a mind-set.
In total agreement with Chad Orzel on this.
15 years ago
4 comments:
You speak the truth, DJ&MH. I recall my very first experiment: testing the existence of the Tooth Fairy, plus or minus telling my parents that I had lost a tooth.
I think looking at that sad little tooth under my pillow the next morning where a nice shiny quarter should have been, I learned that science can be a cruel mistress.
I haven't read the discussion at Dr. Free-Ride's, and I don't think that peer review "makes" science. But one of the characteristics of science, in addition to attitude, is the idea that no hypothesis or result is sacred, and that everything can be questioned and challenged until the scientific community reaches a consensus (I know, "community" and "consensus" don't always apply to science in reality, but it's the ideal).
The peer review system, however flawed, is a manifestation of, and mechanism for effecting, this idea of constant questioning in science. So I do think the concept of peer review, if not the application, is an integral component of the process of science.
I think looking at that sad little tooth under my pillow the next morning where a nice shiny quarter should have been, I learned that science can be a cruel mistress.
dgt FTW!!!!!!
(and you owe me one mouthful of coffee)
Heh. Well, DM, the coffee's free here at MassivePharma, so drop by and I'll spare you a gallon.
Post a Comment