Nothing that follows is intended to discredit innovations of science.
Science is my love language, in part because it simplifies the matter, whatever the matter may be. If you’d like to build a flying machine that reliably takes off and lands, or a bridge that can withstand an occasional eight-ton truck loaded with bricks, or understand how to stop an organism that has invaded another with the use of a particular chemical or product, science is your go-to. I’m grateful daily for those who have tried and tested the rules for therapeutic drug monitoring and shearing force and heaps of well-tested hypotheses.
By its very nature, the scientific method is humble. It does not (ever) say THIS IS SO, it is a process by which a best guess is proven or disproven, with an epilogue that suggests where future scientists might add to the research, or notes limitations, and invites further inquiry.
Science is never finished.
I recall days in Probability and Statistics (the first college course in which my mother reports I earned a “true A”) where we were tasked with drawing the line of best fit through a matrix of dots, correlating cause with effect, clearing the path of least resistance on the road to conclusion. It always left these darned outliers in left field and right, invalidated and disregarded because they did not fit the trend. Each one exerts a small gravity on the line, but so long as most of the data points agree, they are left alone and rarely join the conversation of the discussion right before the conclusion is reached.
This is important.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Virtual Latte to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.