Metal planes are impossible

There are many other examples of where there is a poor understanding surrounding an object of scientific inquiry. One of the more famous is Einstein’s modification of his General Theory of Relativity with a value known as the ‘cosmological constant’ – a term which referred to a ‘repulsive force’ or ‘pressure’ which prevented the contraction of the universe. Einstein wanted to produce mathematics that described a universe which was neither expanding or contracting, and therefore resulted in the observations and other models of the cosmos that existed at the time. Astronomical observations shortly after Einstein’s publication of his paper revealed that the universe was in fact expanding – and Einstein called the cosmological constant his ‘biggest blunder’. Perhaps he will still have the last giggle, however, as observations made within recent years indicate that while the universe is expanding, it is also accelerating over time – a cosmological constant of some sort may yet be found to be at work!

Now, after making these points about the unknown or inconclusive nature of some areas of scientific inquiry, I imagine an entire cohort of science sceptics leaping to their feet and pointing fingers. “Look!” they shout. “This flimsy science can’t even define the nature of gravity and inertia! What good is it!!”

Possibly the best answer to this challenge is to be absolutely clear about what science does not do. Science makes no claim of being ‘complete’ or of having ‘all the answers’. – instead, it is a way of solving problems. Engaging in science requires following a guiding set of methods aimed at the understanding of the world around us. These methods are independent of our personal desires or beliefs and include the gathering of data through observations of nature, or through experiments - and as well, must include the ability for others scientists to duplicate our observations and experiments and achieve the same results and conclusions. Scientists the conclusions from experiments which they have conducted themselves and those conducted by their colleagues to form a model of the thing which they are studying: it could be the migratory patterns of a certain kind of duck, or the chemical properties of an element, how gasses and rocks orbiting a sun many light years away may one day form planets, or the manner in which toe-nails grow.

New discoveries revealing that parts of our understanding are inaccurate, or which provide completely new thinking on a subject are welcome in science. The holes in science where knowledge is incomplete, such as those mentioned earlier in our discussion about gravity and inertia, are not embarrassing flaws or failures tarnishing the surface of some shining golden monolith – they are simply opportunities to further our understanding.

For more information

Center for Philosophy of Science
http://www.pitt.edu/~pittcntr/

The Cosmological Constant - "How can nothing weigh something?"
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

The Red Bull Air Race
http://www.redbullairrace.com/

Red Bull Air Race - London course 3d animation (WMV format)
http://www.FirstScience.com

Red Bull Air Race - London Highlights and Interviews(WMV format)
http://www.FirstScience.com