Rethink Science
If scientists knew as much as they think they do,
they wouldn’t be rethinking so many things so often.
Every week, our science news feeds announce some overhaul in thinking about various subjects. Some species appear in the fossil record “earlier than thought,” or some phenomenon is “more complex than thought” by the experts. These reevaluations span all branches of science, sometimes overturning beliefs held for decades or for more than a century.
Big Science proclaims that “Facts are facts” and demands that knowledge flow one way, from expert to peon. “You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts” is a truism used by dogmatists on both sides of the political spectrum. But what is a fact? Historians of science realize that almost everything considered a fact in 1900 has been overturned by “new” facts. This does not imply that truth is elastic or fluid, as some propose. It does, however, warn us all of the fallibility of humans who claim to have factual knowledge. By its very nature, science can only be tentative, not definitive.
Perhaps it is in the nature of scientists to seek revolutionary findings. Who wants to announce, “Well, what do you know! We proved again that gravity follows an inverse square law!” A scientist who can overturn something long believed gets clickbait and fame. Human nature cannot be ignored in science or in any other endeavor. The lust for fame, consensus pressure, jumping to conclusions, carelessness in research, desire to procure funding or please an administrator, possession of incomplete knowledge, illogical statistics based on a poor sample size, and temptation to fraud must be stringently battled in the character of the scientist. So while the truth about nature may be “out there” in the world independent of what humans think about it, integrity is indispensable in its pursuit.
Recent Rethinking
Cautious observers of scientific pronouncements will be forewarned that if the following “facts” have been this subject to rethinking, then whatever is being claimed today should be taken as potentially falsifiable. The more complex the phenomenon, and the less amenable to observation, the more caution is advised.
Paleontology
“Golden” Fossils Reveal Origins of Exceptional Preservation (Texas Geosciences, 2 May 2023). Certain “golden” fossils in Germany shine like treasures beaming out of the rock matrix. Scientists have attributed the gleam to pyrite—fool’s gold. That was until recently, when researchers at the University of Texas at Austin decided to check. They couldn’t find pyrite in these fossils.
“It’s been thought for a long time that the anoxia causes the exceptional preservation, but it doesn’t directly help,” said Sinha. “It helps with making the environment conducive to faster fossilization, which leads to the preservation, but it’s oxygenation that’s enhancing preservation.”
Mysterious ‘golden’ fossils from the Jurassic aren’t what they seem (Live Science, 8 May 2023). How often are scientists subject to accepting a notion without checking? Here’s a quote by the researchers about the above story:
“It was long believed that everything [at the Posidonia Shale] was pyritized,” study co-author Rowan Martindale , an associate professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Texas (UT) at Austin, told Live Science. “We picked samples that we thought for sure would be all pyrite. And lo and behold there was a little bit of pyrite on a couple of them, but basically it was all phosphatized or yellow calcite. It was pretty much a shock to all of us who worked on the paper.”
In this story, objects available for study could be held in the hand and studied with readily available instruments. Yet scientists accepted the common explanation without checking the facts.
Researchers discover largest ‘raptor’ dinosaurs lived millions of years earlier than we knew (University of Kansas, 4 May 2023). “Than we knew?” Who’s ‘we,’ Tontological reporter?
A geological study of the rock formation that encased a fossilized example of the world’s biggest “raptor” shows it’s 10 million years older than previously understood. The report, co-written by a researcher with the University of Kansas, recently appeared in the journal Geosciences.
If the former “fact” was wrong, then it was never “previously understood” now, was it? But if these evolutionary paleontologists took dinosaur soft tissue seriously (as they should, as unbiased seekers of the truth; see our 1 May 2023 entry), then maybe they would realize that the age they trust in now (135 million Darwin Years) is not fact, but fiction, too.
Biochemistry and Genetics
Long Telomeres, the Endcaps on DNA, Not the Fountain of Youth Once Thought — Scientists May Now Know Why (Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 4 May 2023). There goes a potential cure for aging. Telomeres, the curious “caps” on the ends of chromosomes, were long thought to relate to age and health. Each time a cell divides, one telomere is removed. That made them seem like countdown timers. Perhaps if genetic engineering could add telomeres, people could live much longer. Nice story. Not true. You don’t want long telomeres.
In a study of 17 people from five families, Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers say they found that ultra-lengthy DNA endcaps called telomeres fail to provide the longevity presumed for such people. Instead, people with long telomeres tend to develop a range of benign and cancerous tumors, as well as the age-related blood condition clonal hematopoiesis.
Cosmology
Galactic bubbles are more complex than imagined, researchers say (Ohio State University, 8 May 2023). Tatyana Woodall writes about an oversimplification of observations about “bubbles” in gaseous regions of certain galaxies.
Astronomers have revealed new evidence about the properties of the giant bubbles of high-energy gas that extend far above and below the Milky Way galaxy’s center.
In a study recently published in Nature Astronomy, a team led by scientists at The Ohio State University was able to show that the shells of these structures – dubbed “eRosita bubbles” after being found by the eRosita X-ray telescope – are more complex than previously thought.
Thought by whom? By the experts, obviously. But they were wrong.
Previous studies had assumed that these bubbles were heated by the shock of gas as it blows outward from the galaxy, but this paper’s main findings suggest the temperature of the gas within the bubbles isn’t significantly different from the area outside of it.
“We were surprised to find that the temperature of the bubble region and out of the bubble region were the same,” said Gupta. Additionally, the study demonstrates that these bubbles are so bright because they’re filled with extremely dense gas, not because they are at hotter temperatures than the surrounding environment.
Now, you can trust this new finding for the remainder of eternity, right? Not till better instruments arrive, giving a next set of cosmologists a chance to change the explanation again.
Environment
Recycling plastics might be making things worse (Phys.org, 8 May 2023). Millions of well-meaning citizens dutifully toss their plastic waste in the recycle bin every week. But what really happens after the trash truck comes by? Bob Yirka has shocking news. First of all, only 9% of the plastic actually goes into the recycling process (in the USA, it’s only 5%). The rest goes into landfills. But then, the treated plastic has to be washed. Four washings of the material are required; think of the energy and water requirements for that! Alas, the washing process leaches microplastics into the wastewater, and back into the environment, where it can pollute animal cells, plant cells and human cells.
Other studies have shown that barges full of plastic sent to China and other Asian countries are lately being refused, and are being returned to sender, to go into landfills anyway. So much for the virtue signaling of recycling.
How seaweed has been misleading scientists about reef health (University of British Columbia, 4 May 2023). Scientists often use proxies, or measurements of other things, to measure a phenomenon under study. Why? Often, it’s easier to measure the proxy than the phenomenon itself. Here’s a case of misplaced trust in a proxy.
Seaweed belongs to a group of organisms called macroalgae. Macroalgae at the ocean’s surface has long served as a proxy for reef health, because it is relatively quick and easy to measure. Since the 1970s, scientists have assumed that local human impacts increase macroalgae while simultaneously damaging underlying reefs.
However, the study just published in Global Change Biology looked at data from over 1,200 sites in the Indian and Pacific Oceans over a 16-year period and revealed that this approach is misleading and may even have hidden signs of reef stress.
Geophysics
How did Earth’s continents form? Leading theory may be in doubt (Space.com, 4 May 2023). Notice that it’s the “leading theory” that may be in doubt. Reporter Robert Lea has bad news: “New research ultimately poses more questions than it answers.”
Despite the importance of Earth’s continents, the huge pieces of the planet’s crust that divide its oceans, very little is known about what gave rise to these large landmasses that make our planet unique in the solar system and play a key role in allowing it to host life.
For years, scientists have theorized that the crystallization of garnet in magma beneath volcanoes was responsible for removing iron from Earth’s crust, allowing the crust to remain buoyant in the planet’s seas. Now, new research is challenging that theory, forcing geologists and planetary scientists to rethink how this iron may have been removed from the material that would go on to form the continents we see today on Earth.
Conclusion
These examples—just a few of many similar ones we see routinely—show that nothing in modern science is immune from overhaul. New facts can falsify old assumed facts, not because the facts of nature “out there” have evolved, but because humans are fallible. As data accumulate, and instruments improve, can we be sure that scientists are getting warmer in the pursuit of truth? In some limited areas of science that are easily repeatable by independent researchers, perhaps. But the more complex the phenomenon, and the less amenable to observation, the more caution is advised before trusting scientific pronouncements.
Big Science would do well to encourage debate and require every finding to face a skeptic. Scientific “facts” are not facts just because they are printed in a big-name journal or promoted by a Nobel laureate. No human can know everything about anything. A good rule of thumb is to approach a claim with a balance between trust and skepticism, but not to repeat it or assume it till proven by the preponderance of evidence. Even then, a scientific claim is never immune from falsification.
Oh, but evolution is a fact! Do you hear me? A fact! Who are you, a science denier? You just don’t understand evolution. You just don’t understand science. And the world is going to end in 12 years unless we all recycle and watch our carbon footprint. Science is truth! Don’t be misled by facts.
Lemmings, by JB Greene. Used by permission.