Belief and knowledge - scientific language

[e_pepys]

An interesting article about how scientists and non-scientists use different language - and the dangers that presents. I agree with all of this, but had not formulated it so clearly in my mind.

Comments

[osymandias]

I almost see things the other way - I dislike the use of the word 'know' with regard to science because it implies that these things *are* immutable and not subject to change. It's the fact that these things are mutable and reflect changing evidence that sets science apart from faith. A theory is a much stronger idea than something 'known'; the former implies a weight of evidence behind it, whilst the latter (in a non-mathematical, non-trivial context) suggests to me a strong element of faith involved.

[e_pepys]

but that leaves very few areas in which the word "know" is useful to those without a religious faith (and even most with). Can't we appropriate it (as most people assume implicitly) for "an assertion that all the evidence so far supports, but we are willing to deny if convincing contrary evidence arises"?

I "know" that George W Bush is the President of the United States of America. Contrary evidence may appear at any moment, for example I haven't checked the news recently, so he and Dick Cheney may have shot each other an hour ago while quail hunting on Dubya's ranch, and Nancy Pelosi might now be President (woo!). That is (sadly) an unlikely hypothesis, so I shall continue to affirm my "knowledge" of GWB's Presidency for the moment.

[zengineer]

I'm with you on the use of know. It is a simple punchy word that can be used to mean 'believe with little doubt'.

[glittertigger]

There are some very interesting points about communication in that article. Papermaking has its own arcane terminology which is easily misunderstood. Broke, stuff and couch all mean something very specific and not quite what you expect. Worse than that, woodfree (meaning no lignin) and carbonless (meaning no carbon paper needed) are downright misleading.

[ig1234]

That certainly enlightened me to a few things.

[zengineer]

I think that article touches on but avoids a key point of communication - what it is intended to achieve. What some parts of the scientific community is studying are almost irrelevent to people's lives. It does not affect most people that another planet has been found orbiting a star thousands of light years away. However scientists do want people to fund this work from their taxes. There is a great pressure on scientists to over emphasise the understandable to attract funding. If scientific discussion avoids emotion and relevence the science will funding will eventually stop. Physics is already seen as being less relevent (Reading as we know has closed its Physics faculty).

[e_pepys]

There is always the inclination to over-emphasise the importance of one's own work - because to oneself it is very important. However doing this to the extent of mischaracterising the results is self-defeating in the end - as the article describes (also with people becomming sick of yet another "discover that breaks all the laws of physics").

There is a mismatch between the interests of some individual scientists (who might want to impress journalists with the importance of their work) and the interests of science and the public as a whole. However most scientists want people to understand what they do and there's less incentive to exagerate in one-to-one discussions like the ones the author had on a plane (as I've had as well).

Hopefully no one really believes me when I joke that my next experiment could destroy the universe!

[celestialweasel]

I thought it was viewed as being unlikely :-)

[e_pepys]

Indeed [raised eyebrow]