On Science

The approach of any normal and sane scientist is to think about his or her craft as: Science is a collection of suppositions. Supposition also translates to theory, the better known ones being Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and Freud's Theory of Personality. Amazingly, nobody considers these and other notable scientific theories as uncontestable facts. Rational scientists know better. Even though these theories’ acceptance was established after tremendous effort, scientists are aware they may possibly be invalidated in the future. So, when a “scientist” tells you that such and such is an irrefutable fact, he is full of crap. Period.

How can I make such a bold statement? Let’s consider a few examples…

It was three years after my first wife Yetta, R.I.P., was diagnosed with the deadliest form of ovarian cancer. Most women used to succumb to this disease within a year or so (this was over 20 years ago). Yetta, though, was still trucking even after two radical surgeries and two nine-month courses of the most powerful chemotherapy treatments, but she still had the cancer. We were running out of options and so we started combing the country for answers. One day we walked into the office of a handsome, bright eyed research oncologist that was introduced to us as one of the smartest scientists in the field. It certainly was not hard to believe that. There must have been 100 diplomas of all sorts plastering the walls of his office, not to mention all sorts of awards. The doctor first talked to Yetta about her history with the cancer. He then told us of his remarkable research project by which he could cure ovarian cancer even in advanced stages. His procedure involved entirely removing the patient’s blood supply, running the blood through a machine that supercharges the white blood cells, and then reintroducing the supercharged blood back into the patient. The supercharged white cells would attack the cancer and destroy it completely. Being a science guy, I pretty much understood quite a bit of the technical stuff that he was talking about and I was excited. Yetta, on the other hand, was skeptical. This whole thing sounded too radical, too dangerous even though the doctor most emphatically guaranteed us that this would work. The most jarring aspect of this whole encounter was that the doctor called us several times to urge Yetta to undergo the procedure. He was adamant. He insisted that he found the cure for ovarian cancer. Fortunately, Yetta had the sense and perseverance not to let this “scientist” experiment on her – we opted not to go ahead with the procedure. We soon found out that another ovarian patient that we knew did go for the procedure and died shortly thereafter. His whole program was closed down about a year after we met him. Yetta was still alive at the time.

Fortunately, most people don’t relate to this story of my late wife. Cholesterol, on the hand, is something we all know about, even those of us that don’t have a “cholesterol problem”. Well, let’s see. Where are we at right now vis-à-vis cholesterol? Scientists used to tell us that “cholesterol is b-a-a-a-d for you.” Somewhere along the line, some scientists discovered (decided?) that “cholesterol is actually good for you.” Other scientists, or may be the same ones, came up with a more creative theory “there is good cholesterol and there is b-a-a-a-d cholesterol.” Maybe, this is true, but the point is that science is fluid. Scientists that are telling the truth can’t make pronouncements that are cast in stone.

“Look up in the sky. Is it going to rain?” “Or, my bones tell me that it will rain soon.” Meteorologists, for the most part, are better at atmospheric prognostication than their non-modern counterparts who relied on Aristotle’s teachings for their meteorological wisdom. But, how much better are they really? How often do these guys predict some major storm that never materializes? Better yet – predicting hurricane landfall seems to be a black art. Finally, our weathermen can give us clues about local conditions and for limited spans of time; strangely, the Farmer’s Almanac long range predictions seem to be just as reliable as those of our vaunted scientific weathermen. How, then, are we supposed to believe glorified weathermen who prophesize planetary level events for decades’ time span and tell us about global blah-blah-blah? You gotta be kidding.

Lest we forget, there is our friend, Dr. Sigmund Freud. Up until recently, Freud’s theories were the Gibraltar of psychoanalysis. To question Freud was inconceivable, yet, here we are and what was once considered incontrovertible truths are now lame old thinking. This is the nature of all fields of science. Anyone who tells you different is either a fool or a liar, or both.