SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Q: Hello mam, your answers are quite enlightening, especially the critical thinking and pseudoscientific ones. I have learnt a lot from them_/\_

Do you also believe that the Scientific advancements have an overall harmful influence in nature?

NO! This is my reply to all those who thinks science is destroying nature…

Some people complain that science also brings with it a few bad things like commercial GM crops, nuclear bombs etc. along with the good it does to the mankind. But according to the scientific community – science is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut throats and spill blood. It can also be used for good purposes like cutting fruits and vegetables. It depends on the person who uses it. Likewise science can also be used for the benefit of living beings as well as for their destruction. Which way it goes is in the hands of the person who uses it. The choice is definitely yours, human beings : Choice is Yours ( click on this link to view my art work based on the same theme). People misuse science and then blame it for all the negative things we are facing right now. It is like a bad worker blaming his tools to cover up his inefficiency.

Science is not cruel. Scientific principles are basis for our universe. Without it you, I and the universe don’t exist. Science just is unyielding Science's rules are unyielding, they will not be bent in any way fo...

It seems cruel because human mind is unable to understand science to utilize it properly. And we are trying to rectify that inadequacy by making people science literates so that they can benefit from it.

Q:For those who aren’t scientists, how can we validate whether a scientific claim is legitimate or not? We don’t have the resources to test hypotheses; we don’t know the reputations of the scientists or institutions involved, so what do we do? 

Sometime back I read an article about 'magnetic belts that can cure a few health conditions'. It gave all the details about magnetism with citations. I was impressed.

Next it gave details of health conditions it can 'cure' with citations. I was satisfied.

Then the write up explained how the magnetic waves travel through your body to reach the target and and how they work inside your body. "How nice" , I thought.

It even gave some evidence, errrrr ... several people vouched how they ‘got cured’ of their conditions in no time and without any side effects. "What the heck, this one can be a blockbuster ", I thought.

'What a miracle! Why didn't scientists think about this all these days?', my sister who showed me the article asked me.

Then the truth came out of my mouth, "Because, the waves from the belt would be so weak that they cannot even penetrate your skin, leave alone travel through your body and reach the disease site and cure you of your condition. This is pseudo-science at its best".

Even I wouldn't have found out this truth, had I not watched a documentary on Discovery Science on it. The article was written so well giving all citations and explanations! It can even fool the scientists in a single field, if they are not careful.

You have to be an expert in both magnetism and human biology to connect things and come to a conclusion using your creativity. Or you should have knowledge in both the fields to catch the fraud. Just a scientist in Biology or in Physics cannot identify the loopholes of the argument when several areas are involved.

Now tell me when even the scientists in one field are not good at identifying the bad science of other fields how can a common man without any knowledge identify the legitimacy of a claim?

Peer-reviewing is extremely hard. My mind explodes like hell while I am doing this, or reviewing the research projects - trying to understand and analyse critically each aspect. Not only in science but art and science-art. Despite the knowledge. Despite the expertise. Despite the experience. You could still go wrong and your peers would be waiting outside with guns in their hands. It is easy to criticize but difficult to find a satisfactory validation. A fire walk we manage somehow.

Can you do what you wanted now? :)

But don't get discouraged. You too can try. You shouldn’t trust anything in science without questioning things and asking for genuine Scientific Evidence.

I wrote on how you can identify the legitimacy with some effort. You cannot do it in one day or two, it takes time, lots of it. It is not a full-proof one, but can make you good at identifying the bad science. Read my write-up here: How to trust science stories: A guide for common man

Views: 42

Replies to This Discussion

18

RSS

© 2019   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service