- Email: [email protected]
So what is science?
Letters– So what is science? From Robbie Walker Robert Matthews’s examination of Karl Popper’s criterion that scientific hypotheses are defined by their falsifiability, and of alternatives like Bayesian probability, provides an illuminating view for modern physics (10 May, p 44). Particularly at very large and very small scales, physics sometimes lacks the comfortingly straightforward Newtonian cause and effect that is so easily verified experimentally. Often, vast numbers of observations and sophisticated statistical analysis, more at home in the biological sciences, are required. Falsifiability does not sit so comfortably within such complex analyses. A more speculative approach is encouraged by Bayesian analysis, but there are dangers. Recent descriptions of the universe have meant invoking multidimensional and even multi-universe views, and exotic substances such as dark matter and dark energy. Unfortunately, these concepts sometimes appear to resemble older distractions such as phlogiston, that strange substance chemists invoked to explain weight loss during combustion processes. Neither Popper nor Bayes can claim to have all the answers. Beyond science, there is also the human aspect. Competition for research positions is extremely fierce, and employment selection criteria may well have more to do with survival of the current paradigm than scientific logic. London, UK From Christoph Bluth Robert Matthews’s article seems to show that some scientists do not have a proper grasp of the principle of falsifiability. A theory (or a statement) is not falsifiable if it is compatible with all conceivable empirical evidence. Scientists are confusing “falsifiability in principle” with “falsifiability in practice”. There are many scientific predictions 22 | NewScientist | 7 June 2008
which cannot be tested because we currently lack the means to do so – but can be tested in principle, and therefore satisfy the criterion of falsifiability. The example that Lawrence Krauss gave Matthews, of Einstein’s prediction that gravitational distortion of light produces a bright ring around a star, was falsifiable in principle. Much of the confusion in this article has to do with semantics – the meanings of “science” and “theory”. A more rigorous conceptual analysis shows that falsifiability remains central to any propositions about the “real world”. Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK From Miles Rzechowicz Max Tegmark’s contention that it is “a fallacy” to say the multiverse theory is unfalsifiable, because the theories it is built upon are falsifiable, demonstrates his lack of understanding of the philosophy of falsifiability. What if we never falsify quantum theory? Does that mean that the multiverse must exist? Of course not. If quantum mechanics stands, the multiverse may still be a complete fiction, but cannot be proven so because it cannot be falsified. This is part of what makes much of cosmology unscientific. Hamilton Hill, Western Australia
Carbon tax where? From Derek Bolton Harro Drexler takes it as read that a carbon tax should be applied at the point where the fossil fuels
are extracted (17 May, p 22). This is far from clear. What if the fuel is not used to produce carbon dioxide but, say, plastics which may be recycled indefinitely? What about nonfossil fuels? Wooden furniture may be burned when no longer wanted, so should all wood products incur the tax? It does seem more natural to take the release of CO2 into the environment as the taxable event, though I admit carbon capture produces a grey area. There are also international considerations. It would be essential that the country that collects the tax is the one that deducts correspondingly from its emissions allowance under international treaty. Birchgrove, New South Wales, Australia From Phil Nicholson I agree entirely with Harro Drexler: instead of dodgy carbon trading, emissions should be taxed at source. This is such a simple, obvious and effective solution, working on the existing principle that “the polluter must pay”, that it makes you wonder whether carbon trading was designed to get around, rather than to solve, the problem. Calculating the necessary tax is not rocket science, and anyway most of the hard work has already been done. The UK Treasury’s Stern review on the economics of climate change estimates that the cost to the environment when everything is considered – crop failure, floods, fires, premature death due to heat, and so on – comes to around €85 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. So coal-fired power stations should be charged €0.11 or around 8 pence per kilowatt-hour of electricity. If emissions during opencast extraction of coal were also taken into account the tax rate would be greater. The claim that coal power is cheap is only valid when ignoring the environment. Glasgow, UK
Let’s make a deity From David Tollerton I very much enjoyed Stuart Kauffman’s article and sympathised with his expression of a need to “build a sense of the sacred that encompasses all life and the planet itself” (10 May, p 52). He describes his project as “a reinvention of ‘God’ ”, but his ideas already have a name: pantheism. Bristol, UK From Steve Welch While strongly agreeing with Stuart Kauffman on the importance of combining both Einstein and Shakespeare in our world view, and that nature, by itself, commands our unbridled awe, I believe his substitution of
the word “God” for nature is wrong-headed. It brings with it a huge baggage of mysticism, supernaturalism, deliberately convoluted thinking and imprecise definitions. Worse, it seems his only reason for doing so is one of appeasement. Sing of the splendour and creativity of the universe by all – and every – means, but let’s persuade without losing our reason. Folkestone, Kent, UK
Cosmetic advertising From Christopher Flower, Cosmetic, Toiletry & Perfumery Association Had I been able to comment on Richard Weller’s article on the classification of cosmetics (3 May, p 18) before it was published, www.newscientist.com
which cannot be tested because we currently lack the means to do so – but can be tested in principle, and therefore satisfy the criterion of falsifiability. The example that Lawrence Krauss gave Matthews, of Einstein’s prediction that gravitational distortion of light produces a bright ring around a star, was falsifiable in principle. Much of the confusion in this article has to do with semantics – the meanings of “science” and “theory”. A more rigorous conceptual analysis shows that falsifiability remains central to any propositions about the “real world”. Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK From Miles Rzechowicz Max Tegmark’s contention that it is “a fallacy” to say the multiverse theory is unfalsifiable, because the theories it is built upon are falsifiable, demonstrates his lack of understanding of the philosophy of falsifiability. What if we never falsify quantum theory? Does that mean that the multiverse must exist? Of course not. If quantum mechanics stands, the multiverse may still be a complete fiction, but cannot be proven so because it cannot be falsified. This is part of what makes much of cosmology unscientific. Hamilton Hill, Western Australia
Carbon tax where? From Derek Bolton Harro Drexler takes it as read that a carbon tax should be applied at the point where the fossil fuels
are extracted (17 May, p 22). This is far from clear. What if the fuel is not used to produce carbon dioxide but, say, plastics which may be recycled indefinitely? What about nonfossil fuels? Wooden furniture may be burned when no longer wanted, so should all wood products incur the tax? It does seem more natural to take the release of CO2 into the environment as the taxable event, though I admit carbon capture produces a grey area. There are also international considerations. It would be essential that the country that collects the tax is the one that deducts correspondingly from its emissions allowance under international treaty. Birchgrove, New South Wales, Australia From Phil Nicholson I agree entirely with Harro Drexler: instead of dodgy carbon trading, emissions should be taxed at source. This is such a simple, obvious and effective solution, working on the existing principle that “the polluter must pay”, that it makes you wonder whether carbon trading was designed to get around, rather than to solve, the problem. Calculating the necessary tax is not rocket science, and anyway most of the hard work has already been done. The UK Treasury’s Stern review on the economics of climate change estimates that the cost to the environment when everything is considered – crop failure, floods, fires, premature death due to heat, and so on – comes to around €85 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. So coal-fired power stations should be charged €0.11 or around 8 pence per kilowatt-hour of electricity. If emissions during opencast extraction of coal were also taken into account the tax rate would be greater. The claim that coal power is cheap is only valid when ignoring the environment. Glasgow, UK
Let’s make a deity From David Tollerton I very much enjoyed Stuart Kauffman’s article and sympathised with his expression of a need to “build a sense of the sacred that encompasses all life and the planet itself” (10 May, p 52). He describes his project as “a reinvention of ‘God’ ”, but his ideas already have a name: pantheism. Bristol, UK From Steve Welch While strongly agreeing with Stuart Kauffman on the importance of combining both Einstein and Shakespeare in our world view, and that nature, by itself, commands our unbridled awe, I believe his substitution of
the word “God” for nature is wrong-headed. It brings with it a huge baggage of mysticism, supernaturalism, deliberately convoluted thinking and imprecise definitions. Worse, it seems his only reason for doing so is one of appeasement. Sing of the splendour and creativity of the universe by all – and every – means, but let’s persuade without losing our reason. Folkestone, Kent, UK
Cosmetic advertising From Christopher Flower, Cosmetic, Toiletry & Perfumery Association Had I been able to comment on Richard Weller’s article on the classification of cosmetics (3 May, p 18) before it was published, www.newscientist.com