About Me

My Photo
Ugly Buddhist Woman
The Dalai Lama said, "Well, yes, a woman Could be the next Dalai Lama, but she'd have to be good looking." ugly.buddhist.woman@gmail.com
View my complete profile

Google Analytics

Powered by Blogger.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Lynn Margulis on What Is Good Science?

Interview May, 2011

My name is Lynn Margulis.

I’ve been doing science every day since I was about 16 years old.

I teach at the University of Massachusetts.
I have a PhD in genetics, but I really do much more geological things these days.

In 1999, I was a recipient, one of several,
of the President’s Medal of Science from Clinton, William Clinton. And two days ago, I received the Da Vinci award. That is the membership in the Da Vinci Society. And quoting them, the society is the, for the study of thinking is proud,
proud to announce that they’re giving me this award, and it is to.

The goal of the society is to develop a world-class thinking curriculum and to promote excellence in thinking by developing an honor society for the world’s greatest living thinkers. That’s somewhat of an exaggeration, but they gave me that medal.

I reconstruct the past, natural history, from clues taken to be representational, and that’s exactly what we’re doing with the reconstructing of why the buildings were destroyed in 9/11, taking clues that we think are representational.

That’s in a historical science, that’s what must be done.

The thing that’s most important about science is that it’s a way of knowing. And it’s a way of knowing that anyone can participate in re, of course, they have to have some background, and they [always] develop more. But it’s a way of knowing about anything. And it’s, at the end of any kind of science activity, people will agree that they have collected evidence that illustrates a hypothesis.

And if the evidence is contradictory to the hypothesis, you have to— one has to abandon that hypothesis and look for another one. And one must, in testing any hypothesis or trying to establish it, consider all of the relevant evidence, which may come from all kinds of places: observations, measurements, and so on.

And insofar as people can be objective at all, they will come to the same sorts of conclusions.

So science is a fundamentally useful and accurate and universal way of finding out about the world. So scientists always have to collect information, data, observations and measurements around an idea that’s being tested for its validity And if all of those observations and measurements corroborate and are consistent with the basic idea, the ideas, idea then has got to be published and be available in an open and transparent way that others can criticize.

If the hypothesis is really correct, the criticisms are, stand up. That is, a scientist has no better friend than valid critics, appropriate critics, who— to whom they respond. And if the criticisms lead to abandonment of the hypothesis because it doesn’t fit— because the facts don’t fit the idea, then the hypothesis must be abandoned and replaced with something more adequate.

And as science goes on, the adequacy of the basic idea and the hypothesis is corroborated over and over again by lost of people from lots of angles and usually generates sub-hypotheses or related ideas that can also be investigated.

But of course, science is never secret when it’s done right. I would say that there’s no bad science. There are just lots of things that are called science that aren’t science. Because science is a way of finding out that is self-correcting and involves many people, over and over again, the same observations, or observations that are expa that are generated by the hypothesis itself.

Anyway, these are kinds of rules that international scientific people will all agree on.

And if a science isn’t science unless it’s published, unless it’s openly published and made available for criticism by anyone who feels that they can criticize it.

Three buildings come down at almost the speed of freefall, which is the gravitational speed.  And for two of them it’s because airplanes hit them, and for the third one, it’s a mysterious reason, that is, there’s no really coherent hypothesis, except it’s claimed that there are these fires in them.

The most obvious hypothesis for anyone looking at the films and that was a lot of people is that the buildings came down because there was very carefully controlled demolition with high explosives that had been planted many weeks, if not months, before.

The first thing they do is ignore, in all cases, the most obvious and reasonable hypothesis that is consistent with all other, destructions in a very short time of buildings.

And what is worse is that all of the evidence was removed.

You can’t do science without evidence.

And unfortunately, there was a lot of evidence about the pieces that the columns were broken into, the nature of, the uniform nature of the dust. But very quickly, if this is a crime I think everybody agrees it’s a crime, evidence was removed from the scene of the crime.

Well, if evidence is removed, no scientist could possibly reconstruct what happened. You can’t do science when you are deprived of the evidence, and when your hypothesis is the least valid, instead of the most likely.  When the most likely hypothesis, in the case of Building 7 wasn’t even mentioned.

This is not science. So the claim is that it’s something else? It’s precon— trying to prove preconceived ideas. not having data that they could fit— use to make a model. But to prove a model that was unprecedented in the history of buildings collapsing.

So we’re not doing science here. We’re not doing bad science; we’re just not doing science at all, is my claim.

So what to me is most impressive, since I do microscopic work all the time, are the many, many microscopic samples that show these extremely totally unique red-gray crystals, red and gray in the same crystal.  And it was found in all, the dust samples.

So the preconceived notion of NIST is that there’s no evidence for explosives, and so there’s no point in looking.  That is the most unscientific thing that you can possibly think of, not to look because the, you don’t expect to find evidence.

And in fact, the evidence is overwhelming that these red-gray crystals are very high-temperature incendiaries, And so they have a lot of evidence for something they have no explanation for,

They don’t even look at it. They ignore it completely, ignorant. And dismiss the explosive argument.

And on the other hand, give an argument that’s patently false, that no scientists will accept, that fires, office fires, can bring buildings down at the speed, roughly, of gravity, of freefall. they state these conclusions for which there’s virtually no evidence, and then they ignore conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence.
This is not a pro a scientific procedure at all.

Rule number one probably of crime investigation is to collect at the scene of the crime as much evidence as possible for what happened.  And you had these steel columns in nice even pieces, and they were whisked away, and evidence was destroyed or removed systematically, extremely close to the time that the crime had occurred.

This is not only unscientific; it’s illegal.

Many witnesses, firemen and lots of people describe flowing molten metal, iron or steel, at extremely hot temperatures. And John Gross categorically did not— denied…their observations. So that  because their observations don’t fit his preconceived notion, he not only ignored evidence, he denied evidence.

That is exactly the opposite of science, which considers all of the evidence that can possibly be relevant, and builds a hypothesis based on the plethora, the total of evidence.

So clearly, if you have to lie, or deny, or ignore evidence, you are not doing science at all. What you’re doing is lying, basically.

So this is what NIST has done, denied and ignored crucial evidence that doesn’t fit their preconceived notions. So NIST hires this UL, this Underwriter Laboratories, to and they do their work, and they show that the floors did not fail. They did not give way.

And then NIST doesn’t like that result ’cause it doesn’t fit into their computer model, so they ignore the real result, and they misrepresent some, and provide evidence from authority that, the computer model is right.

Well, people do this every day and they call it science.

And the people who do it call themselves scientists.

I claim they’re not doing science at all. They’re doing propaganda or publicity, or whatever they’re doing, but it’s not science.

It’s not playing by the rules of science.