Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By ScienceBlogs (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Democracy vs. Meritocracy: how science doesn’t care about your vote (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

Thursday, November 10, 2016 8:41
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

“The evidence at present available points strongly to the conclusion that the spirals are individual galaxies, or island universes, comparable with our own galaxy in dimension and in number of component units.” -Heber Curtis, 1920

In many different areas of life, we settle disagreements by popular vote. But in science, we know better; regardless of whether people accept the conclusions or not, the Universe simply is the way it is, and it’s up to us to listen to the evidence to uncover scientific truths. It often happens, however, that everyone can agree on the pieces of evidence, yet disagree as far as what those pieces of evidence mean.

One theory was that these spiral nebulae were molecular clouds that collapsed into a disk, began rotating and funneling mass into the center, where they would eventually form stars. Images credit (from L-to-R): NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA). Acknowledgment: C. R. O’Dell (Vanderbilt University); ESA: C. Carreau; Bill Schoening, Vanessa Harvey/REU program/NOAO/AURA/NSF.

One theory was that these spiral nebulae were molecular clouds that collapsed into a disk, began rotating and funneling mass into the center, where they would eventually form stars. Images credit (from L-to-R): NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA). Acknowledgment: C. R. O’Dell (Vanderbilt University); ESA: C. Carreau; Bill Schoening, Vanessa Harvey/REU program/NOAO/AURA/NSF.

In 1920, this was exactly the case when it came to the nature of spiral nebulae: were they protostars, or were they galaxies all unto themselves? A great debate took place, where two extremely well-respected astronomers argued some very different interpretations of six pieces of data. While the arguments were interesting and a vote was held, the outcome (the wrong side won) didn’t matter. Three years later, the deciding evidence did.

The star in the great Andromeda Nebula that changed our view of the Universe forever, as imaged first by Edwin Hubble in 1923 and then by the Hubble Space Telescope nearly 90 years later. Image credit: NASA, ESA and Z. Levay (STScI) (for the illustration); NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) (for the image).

The star in the great Andromeda Nebula that changed our view of the Universe forever, as imaged first by Edwin Hubble in 1923 and then by the Hubble Space Telescope nearly 90 years later. Image credit: NASA, ESA and Z. Levay (STScI) (for the illustration); NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) (for the image).

Science isn’t decided by public opinion, but by merit, and this perfectly illustrates why. Perhaps, when it comes to the other issues in our lives, we should aspire to exactly the same standards.

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.