Frontier Science vs Consensus Science

[F8L]

If this repost is inappropriate I'll understand if you delete it. I just felt it needed it's own thread as opposed to stuck in the middle of a 5 page thread in Fred's.

Onto the subject material.


News reports often focus on new science "breakthroughs" and on disputes amoung scientists over the validity of preliminary (untested) data, hypotheses, and moels (which are by definition tentative). This aspect of science---controversial because it has not been widely tested and eccepted is called Frontier Science.

The mdeia tend to focus on frontier science because its "breakthroughs" and science controversies make good news stories. Just because something is in the realm of frontier science does not mean that it isnt worthy of serious consideration. Instead, such matters need further study to determine their reliability.


By contrast, Consensus Science consists of data, theories, and laws that are widely accepted by scientists considered experts in the field involved. This aspect of science is very reliable but is rarely considered newsworthy. one way to find out what scientists generally agree on is to seek out reports by scientific bodies such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society that attempt to summarize consensus amoung experts in key areas of science.

The trouble is that the word science is used to describe both frontier and consensus science, usually without distinction. The media preference for frontier science can give the public the false impression that frontier science presents vert certain conclusions. With more research, some of the data and hypotheses of frontier science may move into the realm of widely accepted or consensus science; in other cases, however, further research and better hypotheses may cause the results of frontier science to be discarded.

Unfortunately, when some frontier science is later shown to be unreliable, some members of the public often falsely conclude that consensus science is also quite uncertain. We need to take both frontier science and consensus science seriously but recognize their differences. - Living in the Environment, G. Tyler Miller Jr.

One other thing to be aware of is the use of the word Theory.

If many experiments by different scientists support a particular hypothesis, it becomes a scientific theory - and idea, principle, or model that usually ties together and explains many facts that previously appeared to be unrelated and that is supported by a great deal of evidence.

Non-scientists often use the word theory incorrectly when they mean to refer to a scientific hypothesis, a tentative explaination that needs further evaluation. The statement "Ohh, that's just a theory," made in everyday conversation implies a lack of knowledge and careful testing - the opposite of the scientific meaning of the word. To scientists, theories are not to be taken lightly. The are ideas or principles stated witha high degree of certainty because they are supported by a great deal of evidence and are considered the greatest achievements in science.

[hyo silver]

F8L, have you read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Your definition of 'consensus science' sounds very close to what Kuhn calls scientific paradigms, and 'frontier science' sounds like the beginnings of a paradigm shift.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 31 2007, 09:57 PM) [snapback]533268[/snapback]</div>

F8L, have you read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Your definition of 'consensus science' sounds very close to what Kuhn calls scientific paradigms, and 'frontier science' sounds like the beginnings of a paradigm shift.
[/b]

I have indeed. I guess you could kind of look at it that way but I was treating this more as a way of differentiating between media hype and the general opinion of the scientific community.

A scientific paradigm shift often has nothing to do with media or even general public knowledge. For instance, a general shift away from Decartes mechanistic or reductionism view point to one of systemic thinking has been taking place since the 80's and has been gaining speed rapidly. Many scientists are now more open with their data and more willing to consult with scientists in different fields so that they may gain a larger perspective of a whole system. We have come to realize that, while reductionism has specific benefits, you cannot truely describe something until you look at it in context. e.g. We can disect and organism down to the tiniest particle and learn what each particle is yet until we look at the organism in it's natural environment we cannot know what role it plays in life and it's effect on other organisms and it's environment. This is an example of a paradigm shift in scientific thinking. I was just talking about this very example to an older geologist today. He said when he was in grad school nearly all the scientists he worked around kept mainly to themselves of their peers (in that specific field). As new students adopt this paradigm and older members of the community either die or drop out of influence, the paradigm can shift completely. Sometimes the shift can take place very quickly if a new discovery of profound reach is realized. e.g plate tectonics, atomic theory, evolution, etc.

That is my take on the subject though and I very well could be interpreting it differently.

[hyo silver]

I think it's a mistake to confuse the words 'science' and 'media'. Typically, the average newspaper or TV station has no idea what it's talking about when it comes to science. There are notable exceptions, but somehow the dissemination of information has been lost in the drive for advertising revenue. Television held great promise at one point, but it's been usurped by celebrity sluts and mindless drivel. It seems we'd rather be entertained than educated, and I can't tell the difference between the ads and the shows anymore. I'm not entirely sure where we've gone wrong, but science is not well understood by the general public. Maybe it's all that 'media hype' giving equal time to 'the other side' or 'teaching the controversy'.

[hyo silver]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ 2007 10 31 20:22) [snapback]533261[/snapback]</div>

...The statement "Ohh, that's just a theory," made in everyday conversation implies a lack of knowledge and careful testing - the opposite of the scientific meaning of the word...
[/b]

Yeah, that 'theory' word is a confusion for most people. Way back when I was trying to wrap my head around the scientific definition, I said to the teacher "So, you're saying it's not proven that the Sun will rise tomorrow - the assumption is merely conjecture based on empirical evidence."

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Nov 6 2007, 06:49 PM) [snapback]535908[/snapback]</div>

I think it's a mistake to confuse the words 'science' and 'media'. Typically, the average newspaper or TV station has no idea what it's talking about when it comes to science. There are notable exceptions, but somehow the dissemination of information has been lost in the drive for advertising revenue. Television held great promise at one point, but it's been usurped by celebrity sluts and mindless drivel. It seems we'd rather be entertained than educated, and I can't tell the difference between the ads and the shows anymore. I'm not entirely sure where we've gone wrong, but science is not well understood by the general public. Maybe it's all that 'media hype' giving equal time to 'the other side' or 'teaching the controversy'.
[/b]

I agree with you.

[samiam]

What an interesting discussion. Hope its alright if I chime in...

Nice notion of characterising frontier science as a Kuhnian paradigm shift, but I'm not sure that's quite captured the essence of it. A great example of a paradigmatic shift was when experimental psychology moved from behaviourism, back to cognitive theorising in the 60's & 70's (Kuhn uses it as an example of what he is describing). So what we're doing is indeed using new methods & developing new theories to guide research -- with the goal of illuminating a new level of explanation.

That doesn't always attract headlines (in fact I made it sound pretty boring). The things that attract headlines (and reporters) have often surprised me greatly (in my own research its almost never the things I'm proudest of). Sometimes its just having certain buzzwords in the title, like "Brain" or "driver overload" etc. Sometimes the research can be even be a re-hash of old, established findings, but if it has the right words and they resonate with current events, the news media will pick it up and run with it over and over again.

Take your point about how the term theory is completely misunderstood though.

Think of how the phrase "its an academic point" is interpreted... one of triviality rather than careful analysis.

[hyo silver]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ 2007 10 31 21:11) [snapback]533273[/snapback]</div>

...systemic thinking has been taking place since the 80's and has been gaining speed rapidly...We have come to realize that, while reductionism has specific benefits, you cannot truely describe something until you look at it in context...
[/b]

Well, it's about time. Instead of dividing knowledge up into smaller and smaller pieces, where we know more and more about less and less, it's good to hear we're putting things back together again. Whatever year it was we dissected frogs, I argued against the futility of it all. I accepted the teacher's explanation of what could be learned, but only to a point, because I replied "Yeah, but you don't have a frog anymore."

OK, your turn F8L. How about Representing and Intervening: Did you read that? Do you have any literary suggestions for further edification?

[galaxee]

i attended a lecture on science and the media recently. one of the things that came up is that most reporters don't know a thing about what they're reporting on and are on a short deadline, so they come for a few quotes and stick em into something readable by the general public.

the lecturer then suggested a number of ways to assure that your point is carried across correctly. i think it's good that he is getting that message across to scientists.

but on the positive side, there are more and more science writers. these are people who are interested in science, understand science, maybe have a degree in some scientific discipline. i think this is showing major progress, because that's at least some degree of understanding that hopefully the writer types can break down and put into layman's terms for the rest of the world to understand.

i'm not afraid to say that i'm not all that good at breaking complex ideas down into simple building blocks for the general public.

for now, i'm still not a big fan of scientific debates as headline fodder.

[hyo silver]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ 2007 11 06 19:22) [snapback]535918[/snapback]</div>

What an interesting discussion. Hope its alright if I chime in...
[/b]

Please do.

Would you say frontier science has at least the beginnings of a paradigm shift? The Kuhnian 'break', as I understand it, isn't necessarily a sudden thing, but one who's roots extend over a significant time period. There are often competing theories, and compelling evidence for each, but one is usually stronger than the other and hence more fully accepted - the archetypical paradigm. The shift happens when all that frontier science becomes convincing enough to become the new paradigm. It's easier to see in hindsight, of course. Plate tectonics looks obvious now, but it wasn't until we knew how and why the pieces drifted apart that we could put them back together with any certainty. The intuition was around for a very long time before the proof of alternating magnetism was discovered.