So this morning I got a strong criticism of my post, “The Not-so-Hidden
Flaw in this Climate Argument”, which itself is a criticism of
someone else’s criticism of a climate model (got all that?). I only had
a very brief moment to look at the comment, but it put me in a good
mood...a mood that I don’t think would be held by a similar-type
criticism in a non-science arena. I think there is a very big difference
between the way a scientist, through training, perceives and handles
criticism which was exemplified with my mood this morning. Let me try to
explain.
It is a very good day for a scientist to go in to work, and to
demonstrate that one of his colleagues is wrong. It’s even better if
the wrong idea/theory/model is one that is popular! For those
scientists to adequately demonstrate that a popular idea is wrong,
we have for them the Nobel Prize. Of course, it is very hard to
demonstrate that a well-established idea is wrong because, by
definition, a well-established idea in science is one where many
many smart people have tried to show it is wrong and have failed.
For those people who claim that scientists have a conspiracy to
uphold popular scientific ideas (a criticism creationists level
against the support of evolution), they completely miss the goals of
every scientist.
It is also a good day when someone criticizes your idea. In the
comment on my post, the criticism took the form of “if your idea is
correct, how do you explain the following observation...”. Awesome!
Why? First, someone bothered to read my post, and found it
important/interesting enough to comment...that always makes me
happy. Secondly, I’m now in a win-win situation. There are 3
possibilities:
the criticism is flat out wrong, and I get a chance to both
teach something, and to bolster my idea...I can be a bit more
confident in my idea.
the criticism is partly correct, and I get a chance to add a bit
of nuance, or explore a part of my idea that I hadn’t fully
considered
the criticism is correct, and I have learned something about the
world and have to modify my thinking (at the expense of
scrapping my idea).
Each of these 3 possibilities is wonderful, and it put me in a good
mood! In contrast, most people when criticized (think politics, sports,
religion, etc...) get defensive. They don’t look forward to the
possibility that they might be wrong, and may need to modify their
thinking. I prefer the scientific perspective!
Now I need to go and address the criticism.
Popular Posts
Gravitational Attraction
What would happen if two people out in space a few meters apart, abandoned by their spacecraft, decided to wait until gravity pulled them together? My initial thought was that …
A Simple Physics Problem Gets Messy
A physics problem from a practice AP test came to my attention, when my daughter was in AP physics this past spring. I went over her solutions when she did …
Skepticism and Dubious Medical Procedures
In my discussion with Jonathan McLatchie on the Still Unbelievable podcast, I said that there hasn’t been a verified miracle claim even since Hume’s essay on miracles. Here I look into the papers he references in response.
Get in touch
What problems are you interested in? How can I help?