Whats the point of modern science?

[Alex K]

What I am referring to is the idea that ultimately the vast majority of the population will only be able to refer to the answers dogmatically because they are unable, even if willing, to be able to take it further.

Yes, that's a problem, there still needs some kind of control or basis of trust that the specialists are really sticking to the correct methods.

I don't think educating people in the scientific method will really help as it is the conclusions that are beyond understanding in the vast majority of cases.

I think it will help, because at least they will understand what in principle is going on, and what in principle constitutes good science and what doesn't. So while the particulars are not easily checked by a layperson, it makes a big difference whether I know exactly the method by which the authorities generate knowledge. When there is a controversy, someone knowledgeable in the discussion will be able to explain to me: this and this are the points where research group XYZ didn't follow proper scientific procedure because the, for example, didn't take into account this or this effect. Then I will be in an entirely different position than someone who has no idea about what science is.

If we look at quantum physics even the physicists are saying that if you think you understand it, you don't. Our logic appears to fail completely at this level.

Lets use an example:

Take one of the simplest electric devices - a switch (not a dimmer switch - a simple on/off switch).

Now a switch can be on and it can be off - but not both at the same time.

And yet a quantum switch can be off and on at the same time (http://dwave.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/qu...-switches/)

This is a really interesting example for me, because I am a theoretical physicist.
As someone doing research in field theory, I have a working knowledge of things quantum and general interest in the wider issues, but I am not exactly an expert on interpretations and tests of quantum mechanics and decoherence theory.
So there are people in the world who have a deeper understanding of decoherence and these problems, but I at least have technical knowledge of quantum mechanics and use it in my day-to-day work. So what is my idea of the quantum light switch... I know how to write superpositions of states mathematically, and what happens with them when the interact with a different system, and over the years I have built a certain amount of intuition what these things do, like a mental picture that goes with thinking about these systems. Do I understand it, though? What does understanding mean?

For say evolutionary biology, I only have the rudimentary technical knowledge that you can get from reading popular literature and absolute entry-level textbooks. So in principle I face the same problem as you do with quantum when someone tells me that speciation works such and such, ok I believe you because there is a consensus among specialists, and they have used the scientific method and rigorous maths to think about it. I don't think the problem is so different for quantum physics only because it is a bit unintuitive if you haven't worked with it.

I am a big fan of science outreach (doing some myself), and I think there is a solution to this problem, and I take myself as someone interested in some aspect of biology as an example. I want a scientist who works on say speciation to explain to me what the things are they did to come to a particular conclusion. I will still not have the detailed technical knowledge to reproduce this myself, but I will have a good idea how in principle this knowledge was obtained. This is a huge difference to religion. If I tell you a certain result we got for say the impact of virtual particles on the production of the Higgs boson, I can tell you an approximation of what happens, and what kind of calculation is done, and then what the result is. You can't check that this is done correctly unless you spend a few years specializing, but it is orders of magnitude better than relying on dogma, no?

Obviously even a chimp like me can be educated enough to understand the result - but not the why's and wherefore's of it so I end up taking it on faith and that is the point.

If a swtich that is on and off is beyond me - what chance my understanding the universe as it is explained by Quantum Physics at any level other than being able to repeat, parrot fashion, some of the underlying principles and the result?

[SteelCurtain]

So what is the alternative?

Should we just be happy with the progress we've made and just sit by?

Astrophysics = Satellites, GPS, your smartphone
Quantum Mechanics = your computer, your future computer

[max-greece]

So what is the alternative?

Should we just be happy with the progress we've made and just sit by?

Astrophysics = Satellites, GPS, your smartphone
Quantum Mechanics = your computer, your future computer

Jesus I am not saying that at all.

I am merely observing what I see as a trend. I find it concerning. That's as far as I have got.

[SteelCurtain]

Jesus I am not saying that at all.

I am merely observing what I see as a trend. I find it concerning. That's as far as I have got.

Sorry, should have quoted the OP there. Didn't meant you.

[Angrboda]

I am merely observing what I see as a trend. I find it concerning. That's as far as I have got.

I've come to the conclusion that truth is the property of groups. Even if an individual could grasp things on their own, they have no reliable way of discriminating between those things they know from those things they merely think they know. So perhaps we're already there, in a sense, out of necessity. However, I think it's a mistake to conclude that it's a stalemate, that both priesthoods speak with equivalent authority, because they don't. If someone tells you a ( pastor | scientist ) says X, you'll have very different levels of credulity depending on which. And it doesn't matter that for a small minority of the population, religious truth and scientific truth are on a par, because they will always be the minority and never control the overall direction of society. Yes, you run the risk of a corrupt priesthood, in science as elsewhere, but I don't think the alternative, hoping for an educated populace, is realistic or even obtainable. It's said that Newton was the last true expert in all fields of science; that kind of global mastery is simply not possible any longer.

In short, the problem is not that both sides will have equal credibility because both are quoting authorities; they won't, and they don't, in general. The problem is ensuring the the priesthood, whether of God or of science, is reliable and trustworthy. There's a reason a televangelist doesn't have the same credibility as a scientist, and while part of that reason is based on popular myth about science, I don't know that this ultimately matters so long as the most reliable priesthood comes out on top in the most cases.