|
|
|
| Authored by: jrl on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 02:30 PM EST |
It sounds as if uncertainties have to be ignored.
As a scientist, this attitude is bothersome. The
theory of gravitation, for instance, is very likely
to be correct - all the measurements I've done match
up with the theory within the margin of measurement
error, and if they didn't I would check my measurements
very carefully before assuming that the theory is wrong.
Does that mean I "believe" the theory? I can't say so,
it seems that it would be stupid to believe it. It is true
or not whether I believe it or not - the associated
uncertainty is quite small but it is still a non-zero value.
Because I know this, would this make me ineligible to
serve on a jury where the theory, and/or some understanding
of it, comes into play in evaluating a verdict? I don't
know if I can come up with a plausible scenario, but
something like when SkyLab de-orbited and crashed, if it
took out a city instead of hitting uninhabited outback
and lots of damages were pressed, maybe even homicide
charges against the analysts that planned the de-orbit
might bring this concern into play.
The same question goes for just about any scientific
proposition: we have lots of data supporting the theory,
but as scientists we are supposed to recognize that
when contrary data is discovered, the theory may need
to be modified or discarded. Belief is clearly the wrong
word for that kind of mental activity.
Doubt (or more specifically uncertainty) is a much better
line to follow to describe the scientific mindset, and
the more specific the numeric evaluation of the uncertainty,
the better it is for technical use of the theory.
Does this mean that scientists are poorly suited for
jury service? I think maybe so.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
