In science we learn about the innermost workings of nature through a clever combination of theory, experiment, and observation. It’s a straightforward formula, but can it work forever?
Viewing entries tagged
It may seem then, at first blush, that the tools of science belong solely to science. That if you’re not a scientist then three’s no compelling reason to think like a scientist or to look at the world the same way a scientist does.
So even the raw data, before any analyses or interpretations are done, before charts or graphs are constructed, before dry, obtuse language is applied in a journal article, is full of lies.
So if you ever think science isn't for you, or science is beyond what you can possibly wonder about the universe, think again. As long as you can ask very simple questions, you can think exactly like a scientist.
So obviously there are sets of questions that science is not very well equipped to handle. Does that make these questions useless and invalid?
What hidden dangers lurk behind even the simplest assumptions?
Take the case of the interior of a black hole (a question I get a lot). We'll never see inside a black hole, and if you were to visit one you would a) die horribly, and b) never be able to communicate your gruesome results to the outside world. So how do we know what's inside?
It's our mission as science communicators to, well, communicate science. And not just the process and methods, but also the value and importance of science in modern society. But there's a dangerous line that's very easy to cross when promoting all things science: that science is all the things.