The Galileo Conspiracy: 5 Questions Your Science Professors Hope You Never Ask

As a young lad, I took on my first scientificYes. In fact Dr. Larry Laudan, former chair of the
experiment simply because I could. Like most curioushistory and philosophy of science department at the
youngsters who own walky-talkies, I could only resistUniversity of Pittsburgh, wrote a book (Science and
for so long the urge to bury one of them (wellValues) where he catalogued over 30 such theories.
behind enemy lines) in the bread aisle at the localHe indicated that he could have lengthened his list
grocery store, to see what startled shoppers mightextensively (and others have done this). These
make of extroverted wheat. This, my first foray intotruth-status flip-floppers trounce about like a salmon
the field of agorology -- the very scientific study ofon deck, where "true yesterday" becomes "false
shopping, shoppers and shoppingcarts -- told me justtoday." Here, truth comes with an expiration date like
what I needed to know.Would they simply scurryraspberry yogurt. And who knows, these theories
off, fearing all that is both sourdough and articulate,may yet make a comeback -- only to get smoked
or might they try to hunt down the source of theagain (as salmon are want to do).This tells us that
taunting loaves? The jovial, phoney French accenttheoretical science shows itself fickle when it comes
that greeted each customer in the aisle provedto truth-telling. In court, they call this "perjury," but let
harder to maintain -- while trying hard not to laugh --us avoid the unpleasantries of name-calling. One
than I had anticipated. In the end, fear of thecommentator on this problem recently put it quite
manager (bigcheesophobia) cut short thesublimely in these words: "If the history of science
data-gathering event, but not before we -- Tonywere a single person, it would present to the world
(my assistant) and I -- had learned far too much. Wejust that sort of person we should least want to see
now knew the inside truth about science, kept hiddendriving heavy machinery or carrying sharp
for many ages: it's a real kick in the pants.Much timeobjects."Question #3. Professor, isn't it true that
passed, and the California State University (attheories considered false today by the scientific
Hayward) received, and then quite foolishly approved,majority, as well as in the past, have often turned
my application for admission. There I learned that theout to be very useful? And doesn't this show that no
representatives of "science" bore the right to decideestablished relationship between true theories and
all matters of cultural importance; that scientists coulduseful theories exists?Answer: Yes, and yes. And this
provide the answers we need; and that science isshows from the empirical facts of history that any
"self-correcting," and so marches forward withtheory might be highly useful, and yet utterly false,
unrelenting progress. Just look at the microwaveso that it's utility offers no real guide to whether or
ovens, and the GPS gadgets in our cars. Sciencenot it's true. And you guessed it: Dr. Laudan has a
carries the badge of authority in all matters oflong list of these successful-but-false theories too.
knowledge. Or so the story goes.But then itAnd he isn't the only one.Question #4. Isn't it true
happened. I took my first history of science class,professor that scientists often resolve the contest
and began studying the items that interested me,between rival theories by choosing the one as "more
even if they weren't on the menu. Then came theprobably true" which appears either simpler or more
individual study course in the philosophy of science.elegant than the others, and doesn't this tell against
By then I had meandered into areas of study bestthe alleged "objectivity" of what is supposed to be a
dubbed "plainly unauthorized." Here, I had realized thattruth-seeking enterprise, reducing it to the status of
the science textbook authors (and most of mya Miss America beauty pageant?Answer: Yes, but
science professors) had completely -- I believe thedon't tell my wife or she won't let me go to work
scientific term is -- "discombobulated" almosteither.Question #5. Professor, isn't it true that various
everything they had taught me in my sciencescientists working in different fields put to use a wide
classes.Oh, they managed the empirical details in thearray of different methods, depending on factors like
books well enough. Like motorcycle riders who smilewhich field of study they work in, the nature of the
too often, the experts had strained out the empiricalclaim under question at the moment, and the like?
gnats with an aggressive and precise toothpick. ButAnd doesn't this rather abolish the popular myth that
conceptual camel-swallowing became the order ofanything like "THE" scientific method has ever actually
the day. In other words, their story of what scienceexisted?Answer: Of course. Philosopher of science,
actually is, how scientists employ its methods, andPaul Feyerabend at UC Berkeley wrote a book in the
what science can actually accomplish -- the wholelate 90's entitled "On Method," which proves just that
story surrounding the details -- proved phonier than apoint. Brain-scanning Neurologists do not do anything
well-modulated, French accent in a grocery store.Tolike what mechanics do when the latter search to
help illustrate these well-educated fibs, which I havefind out how much pollution your car puts out. They
boiled down to five for the sake of brevity, I haveuse different instruments, and entirely different
put this section in the shape of a question andmethods. Some methods involve developing
answer format. Here sit before the readers eyescomputational models to run different stress-condition
THE five questions your science professors hope youscenarios (structural engineers do this), while others
never ask.Question 1. Professor, isn't it true, thatamount to sticking a fancy wand up your car's tail
when you call a model or theory "true" merelypipe.Conclusion: The heroic model of science -- with
because it makes accurate predictions that you inscientists in the driver's seat as the keepers of true
fact commit the fallacy called "affirming theknowledge -- amounts to a political ploy designed to
consequent?"Answer: You'd better believe it, Bucko.exalt those with white labcoats as the final arbiters
And nearly all scientists do this on a regular basis.of truth about what kind of world this "really" is. But
Coincidentally enough, so do the textbooks thesethe kind of reasons scientists (and their textbooks)
guys write. "If a mother, then also a woman" seemsmust invoke to prop up this flimsy mythology make
obvious enough. In logic, this takes the form, "If P,no headway against the empirical facts known to
then Q." But reasoning in the reverse direction leadsstudents of the history and philosophy of the
to trouble. "If a woman, then a mother [Q, thereforesciences. Moreover, if stripped of their technical
P]" doesn't ring true at all. Many women do notjargon, and rendered in the common tongue, such
practice motherhood. Likewise, "If my theory is true,half-baked reasons would not earn scientists a
we should find 'Q' to be the case [If P, then Q] doespassing mark in a second-semester logic course at
not in any way validate the reverse, "We did find 'Q'any decent college.The way I see it, if you are going
to be the case, therefore my model is true [Q,to try to fool people, you might as well go all the
therefore P]."This is like the man who argues that "Ifway, and head for the aisle with the heckling
it is bread, it does not talk. It does not in fact talk,rye.Carson Day has written some 1.3 gazillion articles
therefore it must be bread." Imagine that: scienceand essays on all manner of topics. These aim to
professors make a career of reasoning that poorly,glorify God and offer people real help to live wisely
and your sandwich never said a word.Question #2.and well. You can visit Carson's websites at (The
Professor, isn't it true that many highly successfulOmniblog, where Carson blogs everything) or
theories in the past gained the allegiance of entire(Carson's Day Trading Outpost). Thanks for stopping
scientific communities, only to suffer rejection laterby.
as so much molarky by the same group?Answer: