Science triumphs

A follow-up to my previous post. This article illustrates my point perfectly:

A 10-year-old British schoolgirl saved the lives of hundreds of people in southern Asia by warning them a wall of water was about to strike after learning about tsunamis at school.

She learned the warning signs of an impending tsunami in her geography class. Predictions based on hard science leave the kooky stuff standing.

8 thoughts on “Science triumphs”

  1. I agree, but I think it’s also wise to remember that science has its limitations as well. It wasn’t long ago that people thought our soul was contained in our liver and that leeches were the answer to everything.

  2. Science learned from those mistakes, that’s what science does. When we discover leeches don’t really do anything good, we stop using them. Isn’t it time to do that with astrology? It doesn’t even make a good pick-up line any more.

  3. Well, I guess I have two things to say.

    1) I would be happier if ‘science’ recognized (as you do) that it may be making mistakes along with it’s ‘breakthroughs’. Think Thalidamide. Think Big Bang Theory. I take issue with the arrogance that often surrounds the scientific community. Like thinking that life could only exist where there’s water or other such nonsense. We are limited by what our senses can tell us about our environment. Even goldfish see more of the light spectrum than we do. Who are we to pose as experts?

    2) I have noticed a difference between astrological ‘profiling’ and fortune telling. I tend to agree with you about the success rate of astrologers predicting the future. However, I do happen to think there’s something to sign profiling as long as one takes more than the individual’s sun sign into account. I have known people born on the same day of the same year, same sex, same general geographical area who were very different from a first impression but who both seemed to represent different aspects of their shared sign.

    Well, Mark, it’s gotten to the part in my response when I lose interest in the subject at hand and go on to other things…like finding a snack or sorting paperwork. I hope you find inner peace, even if it’s at the bottom of a test tube.

  4. P.S. I know it’s “its” and not “it’s”. I made one of the mistakes I revile most.
    Also, I can’t believe you think science is quick to happily discard old theory after reading so much evidence to the contrary in Bill Bryson’s book.

  5. Thalidamide was the result of bad science. Finding out about thalidamide’s problems was good science. I’m not sure what your issue is with the big bang theory, so I won’t go there. I don’t think any reasonable scientist would claim that all life in the universe requires water, all we know is that life as we know it requires water. We can see more of the spectrum than a goldfish because science has given us instruments to see the entire spectrum. If it’s true that goldfish eyes see more of the spectrum than our eyes, then it must’ve been science that provided the proof of that.

    If you think astrological profiling works, you should demonstrate it to James Randi. He’ll give you a million bucks if you do!

    I never said science is quick to discard old theory. Often it’s frustratingly slow; that’s the nature of scientific method.

    Please don’t hurt me when we come visit.

  6. I love you, and I would never hurt you. Now will you visit please? I am working on getting out of my lease to take a place with two fireplaces and thicker walls. Wish me luck.

  7. how do I contact James Randi. I have discovered what looks like a very convincing astrological profiling pattern and my plans are to eventually test my theory with 60,000 U.S. workers who all perform the same job.

    Thank you,
    Mark Bellm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.