|
I’d like to endorse Craig’s (#34) and Suzy’s (#1 and #17) comments. Craig’s comments are an honest summary of what non-experts do in science: we’re fans and supporters as well as sceptics. Suzy’s sheer wonder of the science (and other scientific activities described in other threads) is refreshing and inspiring. She is a model student!
From a philosophical perspective, we need to be a little careful. For instance, saying theories don’t need evidence is wrong: theories are based on evidence and are descriptions that attempt to explain the available evidence. The test of a theory is in its predictions, and this is where string theory has problems: its predictions are not testable, at least at the moment. That does not make it invalid, by the way.
It really doesn’t matter who the individual making a contribution to science is (professional, amateur, etc), but rather what science does with their contribution. Science is a process that is self-correcting. It is not individual scientists who make progress, but rather the process of science that weeds out the incorrect ideas, no matter where they come from. Whatever remains is as close to the truth as we can get…at the moment.
Geoff Mc
|