As in, are there some parts of physics that aren’t as clear-cut as they usually are? If so, what are they?

  • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thank you for the thoughtful response. I see that we interpreted the question differently, based on what we thought was the issue of science communication. Which I think is really interesting!

    I see what you mean - the people who impose their fantasies onto the science, who seemingly think there is some sort of “science god” who determines what fact is true on which days. Certainly, they are a problem. My experiences with non-scientific folk have actually usually been something of the opposite. They think that science is overly rigid and unchanging. They believe that science is merely a collection of facts to be memorized and models to be applied. Perhaps this is just the flip side of the same problem (maybe these people interpret changes in our knowledge to be evidence that there is no such thing as true facts?)

    The difference in interpretation might stem from a difference in our fields. I assume you study physics. And I must assume that scientific rigor in physics depends on being certain about your discoveries. In my field (disease and pathogenesis), the biggest challenge is, surprisingly enough, convincing people that diseases are important things that need to be studied. Or perhaps that’s not a big surprise, given the public’s response to COVID-19. Even grant readers have to be convinced that there is merit in studying your disease of interest.

    When I speak of my research to non-scientific people, a lot of the times the response is simply, “why not just use antibiotics? Why do we care about how diseases happen when we can just treat it?” A lot of my field, even in undergraduate programs, is dedicated to breaking down the notion that “we know enough, so don’t bother looking deeper.” I think there’s a very strong mental undercurrent in my field that we know next to nothing, and that we need to very quickly expand our knowledge before conventional medical science, especially our overreliance on antibiotics, gives out and fails. For instance, did you know that one of the most fundamental infection-detecting systems in our bodies (pattern recognition receptors) was discovered in mammals just over 20 years ago? The idea of pattern recognition receptors is literally only college-age.

    So I actually find it interesting that you interpret the question so differently. It’s a testament to how anti-science rhetoric manifests in different ways to different fields

    • TauZero
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thank you for your perspective! I found it really informative!