"Organic Change", in The Economist, is about a recent example of how scientific knowledge grows and corrects mistaken beliefs (2012). The article reports that after a surprising result in biology was published in the prestigious journal Science by NASA, the resulting critical arguments and reports of contradictory results led to discrediting in the same journal of a the report that a new species of bacteria which lived on arsenic rather than phosphorus had been discovered.
NASA, the United States National Aeronautic and Space Administration, is a major government research organization, the same one that has recently landed the one-tonne Curiosity on Mars, and it is full of brilliant and honest scientists. But in the report about arsenic based life forms, they seem to have got it wrong. I don't think this is surprising, and no one thinks the NASA scientists are fools as a result: they just made a mistake, which anyone who is working to discover new knowledge must surely sometimes do. One of the great strengths of science, compared with every non-scientific way of acquiring knowledge about the world we live in, is that when science makes mistakes, they can be corrected, and they are usually corrected by scientists fairly quickly, although sometimes a theory can last for a long time before a better one comes along. This seems to me not only a very successful way to useful knowledge and understanding of our world, but to be honest and modest as well. Scientists always know that their ideas might be proved wrong - and that's not a problem.
Just imagine what would have happened if argument, negative comments and disagreement were not allowed: the mistaken belief could never have been corrected! This is a valuable lesson that science teaches us for every area of life, private and social: if we do not allow and accept criticism, disagreement and argument, then knowledge is impossible. So why do so many people seem to prefer and try to enforce ignorance by suppressing free speech and discouraging disagreement? Isn't knowledge better than ignorance?
Of course, this is also why academic freedom is necessary for a strong and healthy education system.
__________
Reference
For the past week, I strongly suggested that you read and respond to articles in the BBC News. They are well-written, but the language is not so challenging as the other sources on my list of suggested reading material.
ReplyDeleteHowever, for the next week, you might like to have a look at articles in NPR or The Economist, which I've used here. The language in NPR is a little more complex than the BBC's, and The Economist has a fairly academic style of language: longer, complex sentences, with a larger vocabulary and much longer paragraphs.
If you would like a real challenge, browse a few articles from The New York Times, whose articles are often written by academics, and which is recommended for daily reading practise by the TOEFL people.
Also note the use of "quotation marks" for the title of the article when I cite it in my summary paragraph, and italics for the title of the magazine.
DeleteAnd if you would like to include italics, bold, links and the paragraph symbol ¶ in your comments, check the how-to notes in the AEP CLASS BLOG - INFORMATION PAGES Comments - italics, bold, links and ¶ on the right.
ReplyDeleteTry it. Don't worry about messing up a bit the first couple of times.
I completely support the idea that critical or argumentative thinking is important for scientific approach. Around a hundred year ago, I can't remember exactly people think the world was flat many years until someone found our planet was round. New information is replacing the old one whenever someone can prove in modern day. I'm surprised your information that a bacteria species can grow on arsenic which is toxic substance.
ReplyDeleteFor Thai culture people in the past were taught to obey and believe the superior ones like teachers or parents a lot. Sometimes the younger don't believe and explain their own idea, but the older may consider they are too confident and aggressive. By the way I think this appraoch of thinking are a common type of Eastern rather than Western style. All in all I think critical think are very crucial for the young generation the most.
Thank you Tom,
ReplyDeleteActually, the Western world has known that the Earth was a sphere since the days of ancient Greece, 2,500 years ago. But is was believed by Aristotle and everyone following him that we were at the centre of everything, with the sun, planets, stars and everything else going around us in circular orbits. I'm not sure what non-Western civilisations believed about this. Does anyone know? Did any great civilisation actually believe that the Earth was flat?
Galileo upset the Catholic popes when he suggested that the sun was at the centre and teh Earth moved around it - he got into a lot of trouble for questioning the authorities in the Christian hierarchy. But of course, he was right and the church was wrong.
I like the way you relate this to different cultural values and attitudes - it follows well with the readings in Quest that we looked at last week and today.
I agree with you. Criticism is significant for improvement knowledge to be better. If you are shy or weak to argument things, you will live without technology and innovation like present.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, if politician in Thailand still argument with stuff like dressing of prime minister or ex-prime minister, our country will not develope.