Good Science

Scientists and mathematicians have given us some incredibly powerful tools to help us understand our physical world. These tools are wonderful triumphs of human intellect, allowing us to start with first principles and explain a wide variety of phenomena, right down to the existence and behavior of elementary particles. As the phenomena get farther and farther away from our common experience, however, the theories become more abstract and require more esoteric mathematics for their exposition. It is at this point that we sacrifice to inaccessibility much of what we stand to gain in fundamental understanding. Nevertheless, although the average Joe^[14] cannot really appreciate all of the subtleties, he can certainly benefit from the trickle-down effects of these discoveries, embodied in practical products that come into his life. In this sense, it is all "good science."

^[14] This one included.

What is not good science is using shibboleths from science to explain things that are clearly unrelated to the physical principles that underlie those shibboleths. Human beings are not just like fundamental particles; there is no reason to believe that they obey quantum mechanical laws as macroscopic beings. Such analogies really are misleading, and we should be wary of those who would use them to convince us that their positions are valid.

Likewise, we should all be careful about using pseudoscientific jargon in our daily communications with others. The least harmful result is that they will believe us without thinking, because we have "snowed" them with technical lingo. A more harmful result, which you should carefully consider, is that they will nod in agreement and secretly conclude that you are a carnival huckster. And you will never know that you have lost credibility when you thought you were gaining it.