S01.E07: The Clean Room

[Tara Ariano]

Geochemist Clair Patterson develops the uranium-lead dating method, and draws attention to the negative effects of lead in the environment.

[Rhetorica]

Love Cosmos and the history; but c'mon, no women presented? Lets start with a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia...

Edited April 17, 2014 by Rhetorica

[Cress]

I am getting sick of the lack of women too.

[Rhetorica]

This show usually leaves me with a sense of wonder and optimism. Not this episode. I was left feeling pessimistic. 

On a nicer note, my kids bought me the original Cosmos book for Easter. It's not like the original I had years ago. I gave all my books to the library when we moved several states away. We had to pay moving by the pound and I knew they would be outdated; but, now I wish I had kept Cosmos. 

[Dagny]

I didn't get it. He built the first clean room, but it looked like his results were similar to what he had the first time around.

[FoundTime]

I wish they had hit the point at the end a bit harder. It was obvious to me all the way thru that they were going for a comparison to modern-day science around climate change, but given that they are aiming this at a general audience, I'm not sure that point could be inferred and be as devastating as it should be. Even An Inconvenient Truth includes the Upton Sinclair quote that "It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

[DeeJayKay]

 

It was obvious to me all the way thru that they were going for a comparison to modern-day science around climate change,

Yes, I thought the same.  Enough money and you have science bought to order, until overwhelming evidence crushes the store bought stuff.

[samuel]

This was by far my favorite episode yet. I liked that they just talked about the historical events behind a very important discovery and only subtley alluded to our current climate change issues. It's nice that the message is there, but the show is about the cosmos, and I prefer when they stick to that. Anyone with half a brain should be able to draw a comparison between the lead debacle and climate change (as well as a multitude of other issues).

Edited April 22, 2014 by samuel

[Intuition]

I totally agree with Samuel.  This was the first episode I felt handled the political, religious or environmental issues without using a sledgehammer.  It even got by my climate change denier friend without causing him to throw anything at the TV.  The one thing that does irk me is that it's always some "evil" institution that's blocking the way of true science, which prevails and saves humanity from some horrible fate.  Whether it be the church, oil companies, other "evil" scientists, big business or government, they're always choosing to frame things in an adversarial way, like true science is always under attack by other greedy selfish institutions and people.  I realize these specific situations are true, it's just the way they keep bringing up these things to discuss and framing them using cartoons and exaggerated comparisons to make it seem like science is the One True Way and others just want to crush it that irks me.  Plus, I am sure there are other even greater developments in science that can be discussed that didn't involve a big institution that wants to crush it.  I just think this show should be more about "Look what wonderful things science can tell us and how this can be used to help the world" rather than "Look at all the evil forces that threaten science from saving us".

Edited April 22, 2014 by Intuition

[millahnna]

There have been plenty of scientific advancements that weren't so obviously opposed, sure.  But science is a "one true way" in a manner of speaking.  It's not a system of beliefs the way a religious or spiritual institution or belief is; it is a method of examining the world, and continuously reevaluating any conclusions made in said examinations to decide whether they remain consistent with new information.  Science isn't a belief system, it's a tool by way of process.  That it can be abused like any other tool I thought was shown very well in this episode with the shady lead-apologist science guy.  I like that they phrasing keeps specifically referencing the process of the scientific method; I think too many people think of science as a noun when in some ways it's more of a verb, on a conceptual level.  Science isn't a religion or anything even remotely comparable to one, it's a series of steps to examine data. 

[Joystickenvy]

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with science is a good guy with science ;)

I think it was a good episode in that it addressed the issue that science is, has been and will be mis-used, just like religion, government, or authority in general. Otherwise science becomes a bit of a Mary Sue.

I think it was also important to include the message that science itself should be questioned as much as any other authority and not believed blindly.

It also addresses an issue that is very relevant in modern society in that the results of and motivations for some types of scientific research are increasingly being monetized.

Plus, how can you not like a good excuse to show a PSA about gay light bulbs and rubbers?

Edited April 23, 2014 by Joystickenvy

[Intuition]

Yest. @ 4:04 pm

 

There have been plenty of scientific advancements that weren't so obviously opposed, sure.  But science is a "one true way" in a manner of speaking.  It's not a system of beliefs the way a religious or spiritual institution or belief is; it is a method of examining the world, and continuously reevaluating any conclusions made in said examinations to decide whether they remain consistent with new information.  Science isn't a belief system, it's a tool by way of process

 

While it's true that the scientific discoveries as facts are not beliefs or part of a belief system, but the scientific method itself rests on a belief system, and many scientists themselves have recognized this.  Some don't but I think they're mistaken philosophically.  I don't have time to post why now, but perhaps later.

[Padma]

While it's true that the scientific discoveries as facts are not beliefs or part of a belief system, but the scientific method itself rests on a belief system, and many scientists themselves have recognized this.  Some don't but I think they're mistaken philosophically.  I don't have time to post why now, but perhaps later.

I don't see how trying to look at understanding and solving a scientific problem in an open-minded way that develops hypotheses through facts and testing could be part of a belief system (beyond that itself being the "system") so I'll be interested in what you mean.

I liked the show this week--and it's good to remember that scientists have been wrong many, many times--supplanted by new understanding. But as long as their work was honest, imo, it still made an important contribution in its time.

As for the lack of women on this show...it's becoming an embarrassment! What was Ann Druyan thinking?

[Intuition]

Any method of study is based on certain assumptions and beliefs about metaphysics and epistemology, and scientific method is no exception.  I don't have time to write a lot about this today but here is a page that gives a very basic synopsis of those assumptions:

 

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

 

Very basically, you have to believe that reality is inherently knowable and that the scientific method is capable of helping us to learn about that reality. You can't believe in solipsism if you believe in scientific method.  You have to believe in a "reality" that exists outside of yourself if you are to believe science teaches you about something real that is outside of yourself.  You also have to believe in causality, but it's also what you believe about causality that you assume with scientific method.  The thing is, the method itself doesn't prove its own validity.  The results it produces seem consistent and rational and verifiable, but in the end it's because they seem consistent with a method that we believe verifies them.

 

The problem where I see it, is that the scientific method is only as good as our ability to use it.  Fallible, biased, imperfect human beings have to decide what to study and decide which observations deserve being followed up on with further study in the first place, which leaves lots of room for oversight and error.  There is a lot of human involvement in science that is not scientific at all, but based on subjective intuition and logic such as when forming hypotheses and conclusions based on data, which can interpret the data incorrectly.  Also, as I have said, some things about reality defy being studied and explained by science, such as subjective human emotions.  The problem is the scientific method may not be entirely adequate to study the non-physical aspects of reality.  If it is used to study those things, it often only gives a partial story.  There is always something left out.   At best, it can give a prediction of human behavior with a healthy margain of error.

 

This is why I can't be on board with scientists that wave around the scientific method like with it they can't fail and will someday know everything.  We can fail.  Theories are constantly being re-written.  Facts are constantly being re-interpreted.  Mathematical formulas recalculated.  There is a lot going on here on a continual basis that is actually not really a part of science or scientific method, but involves the subjective minds (and personal judgment) of the scientists.  The scientific method does not absolve scientists from having to use those subjective faculties when applying that method.  Only these days many scientists seem to forget that they are not above being human, and that just because they have scientific method doesn't mean they have the understanding of reality in their back pockets.  It's just as bad as the religious people who hold up the bible and act like it was "written by God" and as long as you follow it, you can do no wrong.  But even if that were true, there are lots of ways to interpret the bible and there's the rub - A fallible, subjective, biased human being has to interpret it and there are many, many ways to do that, and they can't all be right.  Only the fundamentalists think they have the one true way to interpret it.  Scientists can be the same.  They can think that they are above being fallible about how to interpret what science tells us because they think the method guards them against that and therefore they are always correct.  Ummm.....Sorry, but I don't think so.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Intuition

[Myrna123]

Sorry, but I don't think so.

Exactly.  It's why Phoebe Buffay and I don't believe in gravity.

[ganesh]

Also, as I have said, some things about reality defy being studied and explained by science, such as subjective human emotions.

Just to clarify, there is substantial research and body of literature into human emotions and the role of emotions in the perception of risk, how people make decisions about 'risky technologies.' I suppose the 'margin of error' is a legit point, but there's also tons of work on that as well. 

I really wish science journals were more accessible to everyone because I think just having them out there would be a huge help. 

 

[millahnna]

 

The problem where I see it, is that the scientific method is only as good as our ability to use it.

 

I don't disagree but this is exactly what I meant when i said that the scientific method was a tool that can be used or abused like any other tool.  The method itself is not what is in question but the scientists using it (see exhibit bad lead science guy from the episode). 

[samuel]

You also must take into account that like 90+% of people never even think about the philosophical ideas Intiution mentioned. Most people without philosophy education are going to tell you that of course the universe is real ("I can see it, right??") and of course causality exists. They may well be wrong, but they'll never know that, and it doesn't look like anyone else will either. So does it really matter if reality is inherently knowable?

 

We're all living in a shared hallucination to some extent—all a person can possibly experience is what their own senses tell them. So we're already taking a TON of things for granted (believing without proof) any time we associate with another human being. We might as well take reality being knowable for granted, too, because if we don't, we wouldn't be able to do, well, anything. We would have to throw out all of science, which is impossible.

 

Believing in ideas that science is based on is NOT philosophically the same as believing a religion; it's not even very similar. We have to assume certain things in order for science, and as extension, everything we do in our lives, to work in the first place. No one really has a choice about this, even if you are a solipsist. On the other hand, religion is not necessary for anything of value.

 

Note that I agree with most of what Intuition said; I just don't see how the part about beliefs is relevant. Science is kind of similar to religion in that it builds off basic beliefs, but the implications of and reasons behind those beliefs are vastly different.

 

Only these days many scientists seem to forget that they are not above being human, and that just because they have scientific method doesn't mean they have the understanding of reality in their back pockets. It's just as bad as the religious people who hold up the bible and act like it was "written by God" and as long as you follow it, you can do no wrong.

This REALLY bothers me. I agree those two things are equally bad, but you made it sound like there's just as many scientists who think they fully understand reality as there are crazy bible thumpers. This is almost certainly not true. I think you would have a hard time finding many experienced, professional scientists who don't understand that science assumes certain things about reality.

 

Scientists can be the same.  They can think that they are above being fallible about how to interpret what science tells us because they think the method guards them against that and therefore they are always correct.

Again, agreed, but how much of a problem is this? Scientists CAN think this, but I sure as hell don't see it often. You're describing a either a very poor scientist or a very morally bankrupt one funded by a conservative group, not real scientists doing real work in real labs.

Edited April 23, 2014 by samuel

[ganesh]

Real scientists doing work in real labs also are subject to peer review as well. From getting funding in the first place to publishing and verifying results/conclusions. So if any one particular person thinks they are above being fallible, then the reviewers will be happy to knock them down a peg. 

This is the problem in that people generally don't know how science is "done" for lack of a better word. I think scientists need to up the public communication, but a show like it very good in that effort.

Look at all the work that went into figuring out how old the planet is. It's just a single number in the end, but when people brush it off like, "I don't believe it. I wasn't there," I don't think they really understand not only the work, but the rigorous effort that went into it. And it's not their fault totally, but there needs to be something more where people generally understand how something like that was achieved. It's more like the lack of interest in wanting to know that, is pretty much a bummer. 

[Intuition]

The problem is that scientists have biases like anyone else.  They choose to study certain things and not study others.  They choose to give more weight to certain results than others to lend credence to their opinions and biases.  There is no way they can be 100% perfectly impartial and unbiased, and their discoveries are going to be affected by that. 

 

Also, I believe the scientific method is wonderful for studying the physical world but is hampered by human limitations in discovering the world that is unavailable or only partially available to our senses.  This has contributed to many scientist's materialist bias - Which is the belief that if something is unobservable and therefore not testable, it doesn't exist.  Of course, human emotions are behaviors that we can observe and can be tested scientifically, but in my opinion they are reduced to less than they really are in the process because the scientific method really only accounts for part of what they are - Their effects, which are the part that is observable.  But can they really be reducible to just effects?  What about their cause?  So in my opinion, this is one reason why Psychology is a "soft science" - Because humans are unpredictable and fickle and not so easily pinned down by scientific study.

 

This REALLY bothers me. I agree those two things are equally bad, but you made it sound like there's just as many scientists who think they fully understand reality as there are crazy bible thumpers. This is almost certainly not true. I think you would have a hard time finding many experienced, professional scientists who don't understand that science assumes certain things about reality.

 

Perhaps like Bible thumpers, they are not anywhere near in the majority, but they are certainly similar in being very vocal, except in their case in their condemnation of anything that isn't "tested and verified" by science.  Suppose there are aspects of reality that science can't access (or is presently unable to access given the limitations of our senses)?  I wonder why scientists are generally more than happy to accept that dark matter must exist, but has anyone more than inferred the existence of it from other evidence?  I have inferred that the human mind is not completely reducible to chemical reactions in the brain or observable behaviors based on evidence I have seen that leads me to believe it is more, but is it any less respectable to infer that there may be more to the mind than science (or human senses) can observe than to infer the existence of dark matter?  I sometimes think that the biases of materialist sciences conveniently overlook or attempt to discredit any evidence or logical inference from the evidence that doesn't confirm their materialist biases about the mind.

 

What I said above is making me have an interesting thought.  Science would be able to help us have a fuller picture of everything if human beings weren't so limited by their senses.  We have more reason today to believe that our senses are inadequate to observe all of reality than ever before, given dark matter, theories about the multiverse, etc., and yet staunch materialists seem to me be on the rise or at least more vocal than ever.

 

Another thought is that subjective experience is a part of reality that more materialist scientists can tend to want to either deny or discredit as a part of reality (by calling it fantasy, etc.), but the existentialists were at least right that it exists and is something important to consider.  It is yet another part of reality that scientific method is unable to adequately study given human limitations.  Reality is not just what is observed but includes the observer as well, but science so far has not been so great at taking into account or including the observer while it is studying things or people.

[Intuition]

Just to clarify, there is substantial research and body of literature into human emotions and the role of emotions in the perception of risk, how people make decisions about "risky technologies".  I suppose the "margin of error" is a legit point, but there's also tons of work on that as well.

 

 

Sure, you can study behavior and make predictions from it (which are still only predictions), but you are doing that only from the visible effects that come from emotions, not the emotions themselves.  Materialists tend to want to reduce everything to what can be observed, but it is clear (at least to me) by inference that there is something that these expressions of emotion are coming from that goes beyond behavior and thus beyond observation.  We discuss "the mind" but has anyone ever actually observed a mind?  No, only the visible effects of one.  But materialist scientists will conclude that because they are unable to observe anything but behavior, chemicals, brain waves and tissue, that these things are all the mind is, not an entity that exists in and of itself.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Intuition

[millahnna]

Of course they have to pick and choose what they study. There's too much potential knowledge out there. If they tried to study all of it, then they really would be trying to claim they know everything.

[sev]

Intuition, I'm not versed in philosophy, but if one has to argue that this discussion might not be really taking place because we can't trust that the computer I'm typing on is just a failure of my senses, then maybe I'm not having this conversation.

 

If one can't trust their being (brain, feelings, including whatever else might be there) with the worldly experiences, then we shouldn't trust any  experience at all. Every so called spiritual experience goes through the same filters.

 

Anyway, yes, human senses can't detect radioactivity or electromagnetism. Or can't see microwaves or inside the atoms. Or can't feel how old the earth or the universe is. But technology does and hopefully there will be more to come, that for example will be able to detect dark matter.

 

Ps: thank you for your thought inducing posts.

Edited April 24, 2014 by sev

[samuel]

sev: that's essentially what I'm trying to say. I agree with Intuition on most points, I just think it's a somewhat pointless argument. It's interesting, but that's about it.

We have to assume some things in order to live our lives. I'm OK with science assuming those same things (but nothing more). Philosophical talk beyond that is rarely found outside philosophical academia, and there's a reason for that.

Edited April 25, 2014 by samuel

[Cress]

I finally watched the lead episode. It annoyed me that the only mention of a woman scientist was the throwaway comment of Patterson mentioning that his wife worked with him on the Manhattan Project, but we never even see her in the scenes of him shopping with his daughter and being horrified by all the lead around them. It's damn embarrassing that Ann Druyan never once said, "Hey, maybe some of the featured scientists out to be female!"

 

But beyond that, I enjoyed the story about lead. Neil is wrong, though, when he says that no scientist dared challenge the oil industry about lead before Patterson. The recent PBS show, The Poisoner's Handbook, showed that New York medical examiner Charles Norris, and his forensic toxicologist Alexander Gettler investigated the deaths of employees with lead poisonings, and they tried to get the leaded gasoline banned in many states in the 1920s, only for President Calvin Coolige to put together a panel of experts (packed with oil industry cronies) to lift the federal bans on leaded gasoline. So other scientists were fighting lead decades before Patterson began his own lead research. I'm very glad that we only have "unleaded" gasoline nowadays.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Cress

[Intuition]

Anyway, yes, human senses can't detect radioactivity or electromagnetism. Or can't see microwaves or inside the atoms. Or can't feel how old the earth or the universe is. But technology does and hopefully there will be more to come, that for example will be able to detect dark matter.

 

Yes, and my point is that perhaps in the future technology will also help us find the spiritual dimension, because up until this point any evidence of it has been denied and downplayed by more materialist scientists.

 

I already feel like the theoretical physicists are touching on metaphysics within their own frame of reference.  Which is great.  They are tackling the big questions of Philosophy in the process and are more open to other dimensions and things that we aren't able to experience right now.  I wish that more people knew about those philosophical concepts because it would make everyone much clearer and more consistent in their own beliefs about reality.  The truth is not everyone believes the same thing about what constitutes reality despite what might seem obvious, and so I feel that those questions are very important to tackle.  You have to know what your basic metaphysics is in order to better learn about the Cosmos, IMO, because it colors everything you see in a certain way.  You have to know your basic viewpoint if only because you want to be consistent and correct yourself in light of what you may later come to see as logical or methaphysical fallacies. 

 

The point I'm making is that we all start out with basic assumptions about reality "a priori", and if we don't know what they are, we might be likely to have a less consistent or more erroneously biased view of reality.  Science alone will not rescue us from our biases because it is not a belief system.  Our worldview doesn't only begin and end with facts and artifacts that science educates us about, but those very things are colored by our beliefs about them before we even consider them, and science alone cannot rescue us from that.  Understanding the concepts of metaphysics can give us a starting point to analyzing our basic beliefs and deciding whether they help or hinder the study of the Cosmos (or all of reality).  Again, science, not being anything but a method, can't do this.  I think a lot of scientists have absorbed a kind of materialist philosophy that they feel is implied in the scientific method, and it seems obvious to them like it should be taken as a matter of fact.  But that is a function of their own belief, not something that has been proven, nor is it a necessary conclusion from looking at the world through the eyes of scientific method.

 

Anyway, thanks for finding my rantings to be fascinating and putting up with me, lol.  It isn't often I can get into this stuff with anyone as I'm sure you all can appreciate.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Intuition

[sev]

ETA: I moved my post to the "Religion and Cosmos" thread.

link to post

Edited April 25, 2014 by sev

[Prevailing Wind]

 

I'm very glad that we only have "unleaded" gasoline nowadays.

Now the lead poisoning comes from people rehabbing old homes that are loaded with lead-based paint.  The EPA has a relatively new rule, as of 04/22/10, that if you're going to repair, renovate or paint any residence built before 1978, you have to take an 8-hour class and pass a test to become an EPA Certified Renovator.  You have to wear all sorts of protective gear & seal up the rooms you're working in - a whole bunch of stuff like that. (Fines of $37,500 per day for infractions.)  For several years, I was part of a team that taught the class. 

 

When Tyson showed up in his "clean room" outfit, all I could think of was, "He's not wearing his N-100 respirator - he can't work with lead-based paint without it."  The rest of his outfit was exactly what EPA wants the renovators to wear, even down to the blue Nitrile gloves.