Rocket Scientist

So, once again, cheating, um, persistence (not mine, by the way) has won out and this week I am the Uber Cool Nerd God.  But how to prove it?  Sure there’s the test, but I coulda faked it.

Well, since the first question people seem to ask when I tell them I’m a Rocket Scientist is “What do you think of String Theory?”  Well, I’ve always had to defer because I’m not a theoretical physicist, but I decided I should learn more about it (voluntarily) which definitely goes to support at least the “Nerd God” part of my description, so I watched (or rather started to watch) a special on it.  I’d already done some reading.   Now, up until now, I’ve been at a loss to understand those nutballs who sneer and evolution and global warming and think scientists see their science as a “religion”.  Well, now I get it.

Clearly, Nova pulled out all the stops with graphics and people getting excited and throwing around the word, “theory”and explaining how this theory has “revealed” this and that.  But, they also say they have no testable data, and that, to build this theory, they worked to shoehorn the forces and quantum physics we knew but couldn’t explain into the theory.  Then, to doublecheck it, they, what, checked the answers they’d already plugged in.  Now, at the risk of being pelted with pocket protectors, I have to say two things, (a) believing that there really is a single theory that incorporates all of classical physics as well as all the contradictory quantum physics is, well, a faith.  A belief like that is not science (though inspired by science) until it has facts to back it; it’s a belief.  That’s not a bad thing, but it is what it is.  Also, (b) a theory that is demonstrated with the data it was built to fit isn’t a theory.  Theories fit data, true, but they are testable and have to have new data fit nicely too.  Or they’re speculation.  Nothing wrong with speculating and I won’t say String Theory isn’t perfectly reasonable speculation, but I’ll be waiting on some data (perhaps via the Hadron Collider, maybe) before I hang my hat.  You can talk about such speculation in science, but to call them a theory is misleading.

Worse, it reflects poorly on science theories that have been thoroughly grounded and repeatedly tested with new data and new measurements.  I mean, we see what natural selection has wrought with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  Not just a review of old records, we’ve seen it.  Ditto for not just measurements but visible results from changes to the world’s climate.  But, these glitzy, glossy bringing-science-to-the-common-man shows use wording that make speculation sound like established fact and works around the caveats and limitations scientists surely know but don’t get revealed in the footage.  I hate that.

Note that science stories are not the only “educational” programming that does this and drives me nuts.  I hate some old history shows describing people and places we have only a few shreds of data about and then describing aspects of life that they have no basis for in a matter of fact way that sounds like it’s absolute truth.  For example, some Egyptian pharoah’s tomb is found.  There are two wall paintings on the crumbling, much robbed spot, one of which depicts the King with a woman and three small children.  The narrator does the voice-over, “Clearly, this Pharoah was deeply attached to his children, spending more time with them what was usual.”  Uh, OK, it could be.  It could also be that pictures painted on the tomb of a “divine king” had as much relation to reality as most obituaries/eulogies do today, if that much.  It could be that he was a gourmet cook and was about to make his specialty, roast child with all the trimmings.  Not that he couldn’t have been a great father, but really, a bit of tomb propaganda doesn’t make it a done deal.

Truth is, I think real history and real science are plenty fascinating without the “for the masses” glitz.  I’m guessing my total nerd-ness is likely what makes the glamor irritate me.  I mean, foolishly perhaps, I think many people are smart enough to handle the real stuff.

That explains the nerd.  Sadly, I’m at a complete loss to explain the “Uber Coolness” - that’s never come up before.

In any case, today I’m the Uber Cool Nerd God, so, whatever your question, whether it’s my bag or not, I’ll be answering authoritatively.  Because, after all, that is what we UCNGs do.

Have at.  Remember, without your questions, my “Ask ???” articles are pretty pointless.

Oh, and don’t forget to vote on the new poll, when I get it up.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS