I used to remind students of Davy Crockett's maxim, "Be sure you're right, then go ahead." I would follow that with, in science we go with, "Be 95% sure you're right, then go ahead." But then I'd remind them that a collective of 95% sure decisions adds up to dead certain. Whenever I was confronted with the refrain of, "We never prove anything, we just accept it based on probabilities," my response was, "And what do we get if we DON'T accept anything because we think we never prove anything? A muddle."
Falsification is all well and good. Science has not progressed because we failed to prove anything. It has progressed because we accepted and went forward when we were certain enough that the chance of refutation had become vanishingly small. We KNOW a few things, for certain. Among them are the things that Gary cites below. I taught my students that the "Theory" (I spell it with a capital T when the model in question is of great general importance) of evolution explains the observed "fact" of evolution. That seemed to help some to get past the muddle that popular "understanding" has made of the way science works. David McNeely ---- Gary Grossman <[email protected]> wrote: > The statement below is why we still have a general public that doesn't > accept evolution as fact, or global climate change, or, that invasive > species harm ecosystems. Certainly what the author says is technically > correct, but in reality what is the difference between a probability of > occurrence of 98% and "proven". There is no functional difference and this > is not just semantics. After all if evolution can never be proven then why > should it be in text books, and why should creationism (which also can never > be proven) be left out? I don't want to start a hailstorm here, but I think > that it is an important point to distinguish between what essentially is a > philosophical question and educating students so that they will be able to > realistically communicate science to the public and make biologically-based > decisions in the real world. Certainly, I also teach the Popperian > falsificationist paradigm, but I also tell my students to use common > decision rules (e.g., if something has a probability of occurrence that is > 80% in real life, wouldn't you behave as if it was going to occur) when > describing scientific phenomenon to the public. Barry Noon wrote a paper > about this many years ago, it basically was "Why biologists don't do well in > court". > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:41 AM, > > > Food for thought (hope it's not too simplified for this listserv): > > > > I was taught, and I teach my students, that biologists, ecologists > > included, DO NOT work within the realm of PROOFS (as mathematicians do). > > Rather we work within the realm of PROBABILITIES. I do not allow my > > students to use the word "prove" either orally or in written format. Even > > the most well accepted Theories (with a capital T), such as the Theory of > > Evolution by Natural Selection, the Germ Theory, and Cell Theory, are > > constantly being revised, modified, and updated as we trudge forward toward > > a better understanding of biology. > > > > > -- > Gary D. Grossman, PhD > > Professor of Animal Ecology > Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources > University of Georgia > Athens, GA, USA 30602 > > Research & teaching web site - > http://www.arches.uga.edu/~grossman<http://www.arches.uga.edu/%7Egrossman> > > Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation > Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology > Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish > > Sculpture by Gary D. Grossman > www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/album.php?aid=2002317&id=1348406658<http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#%21/album.php?aid=2002317&id=1348406658> > > Hutson Gallery Provincetown, MA - www.hutsongallery.net/artists.html > Atelier 24 Lexington, Asheville NC - > www.atelier24lexington.com<http://www.atelier24lexington.com/default.html> > Lyndon House Art Center, Athens, GA - > www.accleisureservices.com/lyndon.shtml -- David McNeely
