Science

Science is not dogma. It is not holy writ. Nothing is more hypocritical than a so-called scientist rejecting something out of hand without even putting it to the test and giving it a fair chance in experiment, no matter how ridiculous or outlandish it might sound, and these experiments not only have to be properly set up but they could take years. Science is solely based on a dedication to finding the truth, whatever that may be, and "calling the bluff" of whatever is claimed because science uses well-designed experiment (and hopefully proper statistical analysis for greater accuracy since numbers don't lie to you as much) as the sole test of truth, not "flawless human reasoning" or "past experiences of others" (bah!). It never claimed to "be the truth." It's just a tool for finding it. In fact, the #1 best way of getting into science is to become a skeptic about literally everything; to question everything. However, science is extremely focused on the truth. Science has the audacity to believe that the truth probably exists independent of the veils of each individual's flawed perception (i.e. poor hearing, poor vision, misunderstandings, poor comprehension etc.). In other words, if a tree falls in the forest, based on our observations up to this point, it probably makes a sound. The world doesn't revolve around the human that 'needs to be there to hear it fall.' It also has the audacity to claim that we'll never completely know the full truth, and that as a result we may never know if truth even exists at all - but that we can get as close to it as we need to for practical purposes. The closest discipline we have to 'knowing the truth' is mathematics, and logic, which is essentially math's twin sister. Since I am a huge nerd I will now send you here.

Science is not anathema to religion, either. Why? Well, think about this. If the Deity is the essence of infinite intelligence, wisdom, and truth, which created all that exists, and if the Deity wanted to reduce human suffering as much as possible because this Deity is also infinite Love, then rejecting a discipline of intelligence, wisdom, and truth which reduces human suffering, which is a part of what this Deity created, is... possibly disrespectful to Deity. There have historically been many scientists and innovators who created extraordinary things who were religious - Al-Khwārizmī (Muslim, possibly where we get the term "algebra" from), Avicenna (Muslim) and others from the Islamic Golden Age, George Washington Carver (researcher of peanuts/sw. potatoes to improve soil quality and more, Christian), Gregor Mendel (an Augustinian Christian friar), Robert Boyle (Anglican), Copernicus (Catholic), Edward Jenner (Christian, inventor of the vaccine), and many, many more. Indeed, science and religion have interesting parallels, and after spending most of my life speaking to many scientists and other nerds I can tell ya that most have a very interesting individual take on how they mix. What is really cool, however, is that regardless of religious differences scientists tend to get along really well, because science is something they can all agree on.

Here's an oversimplified way to explain Science. It's literally just like some guy playing poker but all he ever does is call. "Are you bluffing? Let's fucking find out!!!" Or, it's someone constantly saying "Oh yeah? Why should I believe you?" So yeah it's pretty much just skepticism on steroids. With a hefty dose of "hold my beer."

Arguments for Science

• Since it is mostly religious people who seem to dislike science, they should ponder this: if they are worshipping a Deity that wants them to be ignorant, to suffer, to cause innocent people and beings to suffer, and to destroy the environment, and to pretend that such things are actually good, then either the universe is run by an evil genius or everything they've been taught is somehow incorrect. And terror of said evil genius as the sole reason for existing in a religion makes you nothing more than a coward, and usually an evil lackey at that. Or, there is a very good chance you misinterpreted your sacred text/s or are reading a lousy translation. And if you aren't even reading your sacred text/s because you blindly believe whatever your pastor, friends, or parents say, shame on you! For the massive mess that is the arguments for and against such things, see Religion
• Another interesting bunch of people distrust Science because they think it is unethical. Well, that's hardly unwarranted. However, look at this: scientists created all kinds of breakthroughs, and then people misused those breakthroughs. For instance, nuclear power. We could have switched to that from fossil fuels 70 years ago. Did we? No. Because people suck. In fact we created a WMD. Another example: the internet. We could have had the pandemic be done and dusted literally two years ago if people hadn't listened to conspiracy shit online and instead had listened to grandparents that lived through polio telling them "get vaccinated." Really the problem here is not, fundamentally, with science, education or lack of education. It's with lack of human morality. (And if you are a moral person, you have a good relationship with the truth, and thusly with science whether you realize it or not.) That's pretty much constant regardless of education, supposed "smarts," or anything else. So if you complain about the lack of good technology, maybe take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if mankind can handle such things without - yet again - fucking it all up. Why can't we have nice things? We didn't modernize our ethics as a species, just everything else. Science in and of itself is not the unethical thing. That's like saying English is unethical, democracy is unethical, or a socket wrench is unethical. It's a tool. How it's used, for good or evil, depends on the judgment of the person or people using it.
• Science can make it so you don't have to learn things "the hard way," which I will define here as trial and error. So instead of using gut instinct, blind beliefs from society, or otherwise charging headlong into the future like a canoe without a paddle, you can use the results of well-set-up experiments as your paddle. Most obvious example: choosing to get vaccinated on the basis of multiple studies plus seeing what happens to those you know who have been infected with coronavirus and unvaxxed as opposed to trial and error finding out just how much the coronavirus can do to anyone unvaxxed. I mean, unless you want to be someone else's negative example, so go ahead, lemming. 12/17/22 My reason for hatred of antivaxxers: the death toll for children in this country for coronavirus is not just over zero, it is over 100. I don't care if you think it's a hoax. I don't care how uneducated you are. It is basic decent human behavior to make sure even the risk of killing a child is something you do not take. Many more children and teenagers have been sickened and hospitalized for this also, and that counts as seriously harming the young. "But hoax" - yeah. Good luck living with yourself.
• Science does have a dark side. It's convinced some that social darwinism and eugenics (among other things, usually to give yourself power you neither need nor should have) make perfect sense and that moral principles and religion are utterly separate from nature and the "real world." To them I say - you need to learn more science. Because if you're really so arrogant and hubristic that you think you understand how the science of life works, how science works, and have figured out all the big questions based on careful study of Nature and think you are entitled to mess with it and other living creatures, I don't think you're actually paying attention to anything besides your own inflated sense of self-righteousness and supposed "superiority." I wish I could yank you into space so you could see the pale blue dot and re-quote "look at that, you son of a bitch." I wish I could somehow explain to you the wonder of looking at and really observing something for the first time, even a single drop of water, and going to yourself "there is no way I could ever fully understand this." And if you fail to understand that there is life outside of you, and there are wonders you'll never know, and you are completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things, then you aren't. learning. science. It is not here to provide you with answers. It is here to provide you with questions that lead to more questions.
• Throughout history, it can be argued that the one discipline that has reduced human suffering more than any other method, including superstition, religion, war, so-called ethics and the study thereof, drugs and mood-altering substances and activities, habit, wealth, power, popularity, physical strength, assorted kinds of government, social codes of conduct, tradition, and even one's overall level of intelligence, has been science. There are so many examples that if you look into it (and you should), you will probably lose count.
• By learning science you can end the Dark Ages within your own mind and convert your mental world into something akin to the Golden Age. It will help you see the truth, free you from misconceptions and unclear thinking, and give you the power to live well.
• By learning science you can firmly, permanently, and thoroughly destroy within yourself all beliefs that boil down to something like "It's true because I say it is!" that someone told you long ago and forced you to believe because you had no other choice. Incidentally, I think that telling any child "Because I said so!" is a terrible thing to do as it denigrates the value of truth at a young age. Conversely, you get to find out what really is true, which is your own version of the Declaration of Independence, except from bullshit.
• On the whole, scientists seem to be a lot happier, a lot healthier, and a lot less stressed. Meet a bunch and see what you find.

The Scientific Method:

• If the following is too complicated, this Wikipedia article should help
• 1. Observation. You notice something and spend time watching it. You begin to get curious about some aspect or other. You can't run an experiment on the whole thing because there are too many variables (things that change, usually things that change over time), so isolate one in particular. One thing you really want to know more about.
• 2. Come up with a hypothesis - that's a fancy word for a guess. Guess something about that one thing, and be very specific with your guess. Phrase it in such a way that you can either totally prove or disprove it relatively easily, hopefully with numbers because they're less likely to be subjective. NOTHING is off limits for a hypothesis, and it does not have to be an educated guess.
• 3. Come up with a way to test that hypothesis, to prove if you're right or wrong, or completely off the mark. Make sure your test is set up in such a way that the experiment is both a. measurable with concrete (NOT subjective) recordable information or (ideally) numbers, b. isolated from everything else in the subject's environment so other irrelevant stuff doesn't contaminate your results, and c. repeatable.
• 4. Run an experiment using the test you came up with to see if your hypothesis holds any water or if it's full of crap.
• 5. Analyze the results. Again, numbers are good.
• 6. Repeat the experiment until you start going crazy and never want to see it again, I mean until it's likely that whatever the outcome from the experiment is will give you good data. Why do you repeat experiments? Because you want to see what is most likely to happen in the future if you repeat the experiment in some way. Often, what you think happens most of the time is just a fluke and only happens once in a blue moon if you're really lucky, so you don't want to rely on that.
• 7. Analyze the results again.
• 8. Ask yourself where you screwed up and what could have gone wrong or led you astray from the truth.
• 9. Using knowledge of where you think things screwed up, modify, correct, and repeat the experiment yet again, and again and again, until you want to run screaming into the night. Modify only one variable at a time if there are many so you can see what is going right (or wrong) and not get confused.
• 10. If - and only if - your experiment's outcome is repeatedly the same if done under the same conditions, and there are no confounding factors (a.k.a. b.s. factors, such as faking results to match your pet hypothesis, instruments that don't measure properly, etc.), your conclusion isn't total crap. Rejoice.
• 11. Make a theory based on the evidence - an explanation that seems to fit the results of your experiment. A theory is a glorified hypothesis, and can never be completely proven. Even numbers can lie if you've gotten them from the wrong places, in the wrong way, or if you're just unlucky.
• 12. This is not officially a part of the Scientific Method, but it's always good to 'field test' theories by putting them to the test in real-world conditions that are as chaotic and messy as possible. See just how reliable these theories are. Little kids often do this when they're just discovering gravity by throwing stuff, pushing stuff off tables, dropping things on purpose, etc. Notably, scientists do this all the time with other scientists' pet theories, which is how we end up with things like General Relativity deposing the older Classical Mechanics, and other such innovation. After enough people in enough disparate situations field test and analyze theories, people inevitably run into new and better information and new and better results from experiments down the line that completely disprove the original theory. This often makes the scientists that came up with the original theory very, very upset.
• 13. Another unofficial step but a very important one: peer review. Get someone knowledgeable enough to make informed and relevant comments to take a look at the experiment and harangue you with the worst critiques they can think of.

An example of the Scientific Method in informal, not-too-rigorous practical usage:

• 1. Observation - "I cooked rice today on the stove and it turned out good." Seriously though this is a tough experiment that you can run at home. It's not easy to make good rice on the stove and there are about a million different ways people recommend you do it. You might want to do some background research for the Observation phase, such as looking up recipes for rice on the stovetop from the best sources you can find. I'd recommend you try to use The Woks of Life and Yi Reservation, then try to go for the method that sounds best, perhaps a hybrid of various recipes. Background research often also includes a long period of observation, trial and error, because otherwise you wind up kind of spending way more time than you would otherwise on fruitless experiments because you don't know what you're doing, or looking for, or anything like that. So in order to reduce hassle you might want to try out a bunch of different stovetop rice recipes over a long period of time. Say two months, or whatever.
• 2. Hypothesis - "I think this method of cooking rice on the stove will work well for me in the future and I would like to find out if that is true." Generally speaking you should have a good reason for you hypothesis or your experiment will likely be a waste of your time. Why do you have that hypothesis? If for instance you say "I think this method of cooking rice on the stove will work well because I paid a lot for the rice" you'll have no way of knowing if that has anything to do with the outcome, but if you say "I think this will work because I weighed the rice after soaking and it weighs the same as it did the last time I cooked it and it worked out well then," or "I think this will work because the exact cooking method and temperature I used last time seemed to work," you'll be able to determine whether that matters or not. Notice how this particular problem has more than one variable: problems like this are usually more difficult than others. In my own experience, I have seen most problems in real life are like this and it is exceptionally difficult to find or even create problems or experiments with just one variable.
• 3. Setup of Experiment - "I will cook a pot of rice on the stove with the same exact ingredients, method, heat, equipment, cooking environment, chef, recipe, and cooking method. I will measure the heat throughout the cooking process with a food-safe thermometer attached to logging software so I can see the temperature of the pot during the entire cooking period."
• 4. Experiment -Let's say you were encouraged by the experiment because the rice turned out great.
• 5. Analysis of Experiment - "The temperature throughout and the cooking method seems to have cooked the rice. Plus I ate the rice. So far so good."
• 6. Repetition of Experiment - "I burn rice when I cook it 90/100 times using the same exact cooking method, equipment, recipe, heat, cooking environment, chef, and ingredients. Here are the graphs of the temperature of the pot as I cook the rice."
• 7. Analysis of Experiment, Yet Again -Since you don't have anything that could have told you what went wrong with the rice since cooking has so many variables, you're kind of stumped.
• 8. How Did I Screw This Up? - Rack your brains as to what could have gone wrong with your stupid rice.
• 9. Modify Experiment to Not Suck So Badly; Repeat A Gajillion Times - Modify the heat only for a bunch of tests to see if that works, using the thermometer and logging software to be sure your electric stove isn't turning off midway through and dropping the heat so it stops cooking out of nowhere, or something. No? Okay, then, modify the amount of liquid, measuring it as exactly as you can using the most precise measuring cup you've got, and doing a whole bunch of trials using gradually more liquid, say 5 amounts with the same additional increase added to each amount to see what works best. If that doesn't work, modify the pre-soaking time. Etc. Keep going until you manage to make a *@#&%*& pot of rice that @#(&#%&(& is properly @#($&%^!!! cooked. You might have sneaky variables that are screwing up your experiment, such as changing air pressure, rice that absorbs differing amounts of liquid each time you pre-soak it because of differing expiration dates/age of rice, different ambient temperatures in the room, an electric stove that loves to hate you and put out different heat outputs because it's evil, and so on, so if you're trying everything and still getting no answers think outside the box and get some instruments (barometer, scale to weigh the soaked rice, thermometer that gauges air temperature) to actually measure these things to see if they are even an issue.
• 10. Analyze Results, Again, If Successful; Draw Conclusions If Able -Hopefully you'll have managed, for this example, to make an edible pot of rice on the stove at least 90/100 times you try. Try to figure out why that happened. Your conclusions? Some of the rice from the store was old, based on expiration dates, and it works when the rice is not old.
• 11. Found a Working Theory, Woot -Let's say in this case you make a recipe for a pot of rice on the stove that isn't burned most times you try to make it, which requires rice that is under a year old from harvest to table in order to work. You're done, great.
• 12. Innovate - This could be finding a better and more reliable way of cooking rice, such as just using a rice cooker. Or you could spend a few months working to absolutely perfect the stovetop rice using methods no one can even imagine right now.
• 13. Bring someone good at cooking stovetop rice in to take a look at what you're doing from start to finish to help you.

Simplified, the Scientific Method goes like this: Make an observation, ask a question, form a hypothesis (testable explanation), make a prediction based on the hypothesis, test the prediction, iterate iterate iterate iterate iterate iterate (use the results to make new hypotheses and predictions and repeat the entire process over and over again).

Here is another method of explaining it: ScienceBuddies

Here is a simplistic method of explaining it: Scientific Method

If you wish to come up with a hypothesis, it helps to keep a good experiment in mind so that you can test your idea in the real world instead of with wishful thinking. This is helpful for everything in life. With the scientific method, practice makes perfect, so if you wish to truly master how it works I suggest using it with everything you can think of. It is helpful for determining the truth, and that's what science is all about. These days, despots and their cronies are doing everything in their power to foster an anti-science attitude. Why? Because science works, and it is one of the keys to freedom, power, and living a good life. It kills fear and in its place creates independence; reasoning; freedom. More importantly, it's way more difficult to create a cult that gives you unearned goodies when you're dealing with scientists as opposed to the uneducated. People who want to be dictators would rather the general public not know that.

By the way, science is only boring when you're first learning it. The more you learn, the weirder it gets. And by weird I mean really bizarre. Weirder than folklore, fairy tales, urban legends, and conspiracy theories. Try A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. You'll see what I mean.

Books

• The Art of Science by Joseph J. Carr - You know how sometimes a book comes along and blows your hair back and you know you will never be the same? This is one of those. I love it so much. In fact I have learned more of use from this book than from all of the years of schooling and even supplemental learning from a library, in any subject, combined. Everyone needs this book. As with every other good book, if you find anything of merit in there, try applying its ideas to everything in your own life that you can, to see if it betters it. Don't just let the words sit there unused or merely memorized. Play around with the stuff you learn, because after all, that's what experimentation is.
• The Handy Science Answer Book - still relevant after all these years. Published in the 90s and entertaining to read through a little at a time, day by day.
• NEW 7/16/22 Before THe World Was Ready by Claire Eamer - stories of legendary scientists and their groundbreaking ideas. Kind of sad but very inspiring.
• Robert Gardner's Challenging Science Experiments - like cooking, you've got to have a "what the hell" attitude with these
• For young children, books by David Macaulay, especially the How Things Work series, are helpful. Mammoth Science in particular is fun.
• Bill Nye the Science Guy actually wrote books for kids on a variety of science topics. I've only managed to read one but it was okay for introducing the topic (infectious diseases and vaccines)
• Janice Van Cleave wrote a bunch of books on science education for kids. Again, haven't managed to read any except for her math one, which is good. Got rid of recommending this for reasons explained in the Math section
• The Dorling Kindersley Eyewitness book series is fantastic for little kids who are interested in science. It can be a little overwhelming to try to read a whole book of one of these though so try to convince them to go through it just a little at a time. Good luck, kids are usually pretty stubborn.
• 9/29/22 The Seven Follies of Science by John Phin - you can find this at Project Gutenberg. I am just now reading it and it is a delight.
• 1/4/24 Popular Mechanics The Big Little Book of Awesome Stuff by Dan Bova - Surprisingly entertaining and suitable for all ages. Seems to me the hallmark of a great book about science is if it appeals to all ages and all levels of education as long as the reader has an open mind and some curiosity. This has that. However, there are some pieces of inaccurate information in there. For instance, it recommends making eye contact with a bear and slowly walking away backwards. Decent, if not great, advice for brown and black bears, not so much for polar bears or grizzlies. More concerning is the recommendation to wear gloves while working with power tools. Don't ever do that unless you have to for some reason. You need as much fine motor control as you can get with those, and gloves restrict that. They also can get caught in machinery, leading to well, bad consequences.

Hands-On Books, to prevent the "what the heck will I ever need to use this for?!" problem

• DIY Solar Projects, Updated Edition by Eric Smith and Philip Schmidt with Troy Wanek - exactly that
• Added 1/10/23 Drip Irrigation for Every Landscape and All Climates by Robert Kourik - One of those intimidating college course-in-a-book type textbooks, but if taken slowly is an absolute pleasure to read. Not to mention really useful. Take it a chapter at a time with many breaks, and if you panic like I did because it makes your brain hurt too, take a break, come back later, persist.
• How To Make An Eco Garden by John Walker and The Book of Gardening for Kids by Whitney Cohen and John Fisher - mostly for hands-on learning of ecology

Resources

• Youtubes 6/21/23 There are multiple playlists containing the original episodes of Bill Nye The Science Guy so if your library doesn't carry those DVDs try this
• Added 12/26/22 Science Museum of Oklahoma SMO At Home At-home science projects so interesting anyone of any age would enjoy them
• Added 8/17/22 Today In Science calendar Science events for every day of the year. If you actually go through with reading this thing every day, you'll learn more than you ever thought possible, though it will take years to come to grips with the events of even one day
• Science and Tech News
• ScienceBob Some rather dangerous experiments. Woo!

Fun Stuff

If you haven't had the benefit of seeing these before, please do yourself a favor and watch them. They are notorious for getting people, especially kids, absolutely fascinated with science. Sure worked for me!

• Bill Nye the Science Guy TV show - great for kids - Bill Nye wrote a whole series of books for kids as well. They are worth reading if you're grown up also.
• Beakman's World TV show - great for kids
• The Magic School Bus TV show - great for kids - Joanna Cole wrote a whole series of books for kids as well. They are surprisingly good and worth reading even if you're grown up.
• Eyewitness British TV show - great for kids
• Flight of Dragons movie
• Mark Rober

Home