I was reading with interest the scientists' hypothesis as to how Mars became a red planet. The experiments they performed to replicate what was observed in nature struck me as quite similar to what a soothsayer might have done in the past: Replicate a natural phenomenon and provide the answer to a relatively un-learned audience.
True, true, science nowadays is backed up with replicable experiments and tested theories, but come to think of it, so did soothsayers in their day. If the bones of prophecy did not fall right, or the crops failed, a soothsayer might attribute it to the whims of the fickle gods. Not quite something that can be directly proven by the audience. As for the more sophisticated experiments of the scientists, well, the average person probably does not have the equipment to replicate it either.
I suppose people will always want answers, preferably from authorities on the matter. I do wonder what things will be like in the distant future (assuming humanity is not wiped out by one catastrophe or another), what the scientists would think of our (comparatively) primitive methods of discovery and perhaps even marvel at the lost secrets of our craft when they discover some of our creations that they can no longer replicate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Maybe you should read the actual paper(s) the scientist published, and decide what they are saying and how much to believe them.
I wonder why people are conditioned to believe science is some mysterious thing that mysterious "scientists" do (just like mysterious soothsayers do something). Maybe because in primary school, science was authoritative figure in textbooks declaring facts and world-changing discoveries.
It's like saying novelists are mysterious people who can write stories, photographers are mysterious people who can use cameras, philosophers are mysterious people who think. Normal people can't write stories, can't shoot photographs, can't think about their life, so they can only read about these mysterious figures doing their thing and wondering if it is all mysterious bullshit.
But you see people writing and criticising novels, shooting photographs and checking for photoshopping, and debating the merits of different philosopher theories.
Similarly it's always possible to pick up the actual published paper and read what's the scientist thinks, then think about whether it's a good piece of research or not.
Post a Comment