Science, or Ken Ring?

More...

 

 

 

Science, or Ken Ring?

 

“many people can't see past the word of our scientists who are bound by the limits of their own learning and egos.”

This comment appeared on the Yahoo website on the day when the nation awaited proof or otherwise of Ken Ring’s earthquake prediction.

It raises questions: Why do people distrust science? And why does Ken Ring appear to have such a following?

The nature of scientific advances is not widely understood. There is rarely a Eureka moment, when a new truth is suddenly revealed. The scientific method involves the formation of an hypothesis, its testing, its modification in the light of what was discovered during the testing process, and testing of the new hypothesis until a provable truth is arrived at.

Thus the process is a gradual creep towards a full understanding of whatever is under investigation, and there are usually false trails along the way. But to the uninitiated, the initial hypothesis is regarded as the truth (“Scientists say that…”), and any modification of that supposed truth is greeted by cries of “They got it wrong again”.

And sometimes the original hypothesis is indeed wrong. Mostly this is picked up in the peer review process and the world moves on down more correct paths, but not before the “they got it wrong” response kicks in. Sometimes error is not picked up and things really do go sour – think thalidomide. Each such failure reinforces the cynics’ distrust of science.

But mostly scientists don’t get it wrong, and they are responsible for the gradual accumulation of knowledge that has led us from cold and damp caves  to our present levels of comfort and wellbeing based on electricity, telecommunication, antibiotics, DNA, CT scanners, plant breeding, computers… Never have we had it so easy, and it is science that has produced these material benefits, enjoyed by even science-deniers.   

Science can be very complex, to the point where lay people do not understand it. Thus we often find scientists appearing to say different things, when in fact they may just be discussing different aspects of the same issue – to lay people these discussions look like differences of opinion, leading to the allegation that “scientists can’t even agree among themselves,” and “they keep giving different explanations”.

Ring’s supporters claim that Galileo and Copernicus were the ones who got it right, while the establishment ridiculed their ideas. They ask, “Why should we ignore Mr Ring’s equally unconventional ideas, which may be right?” 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. They have turned the facts upside down.

Scientists of ancient China and Greece centuries before Galileo understood the movement of the planets, knowledge that was lost/suppressed during the Dark Ages. In fact, Galileo was not being unconventional – he was reviving the forces of science and advancement, and found himself at loggerheads with the forces of ignorance and superstition, of astrology and the Church. (The Church has recently apologised.) 

Today Ring is not a far-seeing, Galileo-like scientist – he is an astrologer, a man looking backwards to methods based on soothsaying, witchcraft and superstition, while the forces of scientific progress edge towards a fuller understanding of what is really happening.

And they are indeed progressing. The science of plate tectonics is very new – it is less than 100 years since Alfred Wegener put forward his concept of drifting continents, and barely half of that since science proved him right. 
Geoscientists have shown us how plates move, from say the mid-Atlantic spreading zone that drives continents apart, to the subduction zones where they dive once more into the interior of the earth, as they did to create the Japanese tsunami.
There is a long way to go, and it will be a many years before scientists know enough to be able to predict future seismic events, but it is from scientific hypothesis testing that the answers will come – not from Dark Ages soothsaying by Mr Ring, none of whose theories have stood up to scientific review.  

Why then does Ring have such a following?

Psychologists Frank O’Connor and Mark Wilson recently opined in a newspaper report that there are several reasons:
1. People want someone to tell them why apparently inexplicable events are happening;
2. People want certainty rather than scientific speculation, which often seems contradictory as different scenarios are explored:
3. There will always be a section of the population, often less educated, or otherwise aggrieved, who will spring to the defence of any person perceived to be under attack by the establishment.

Whatever the reasons, we would do well to place our faith in peer-reviewed science rather than in a self-acknowledged astrologer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

More: http://www.hsengine.com/s_copernicus.html