I have a lifelong interest in the history and methods of science.  That does not generally involve knowledge of a science itself but of the methods scientists use and of how innovations and discoveries have been used in the world.  There are general two points about this I’ll try to make here.

The first is that the history of science is complicated by, well, scientists.  This history is replete with rivalries and conflicts that have sometimes spilled over into politics and the social arena.  I have not yet seen “Oppenheimer,” but I was raised by a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project so I have followed those issues all along.  Einstein wrote that famous letter to FDR and spent the rest of his life regretting it, once it became certain the Germans would never get The Bomb.  I met Joseph Rotblat (1995 Nobel Peace Laureate) at a conference in Israel.  He wasa leading scientist in Los Alamos and he quit as soon as that happened and spent the rest of his life trying to ban nuclear weapons.  My father told me that almost everyone who works on the project held the same position, except Edward Teller and a few who followed him.  Teller, my father told me, was universally hated among those scientists for what he did to Oppenheimer.  I’m pretty sure the film will illustrate the politics.

One of the benefits for me participating in our group is that exchanges and posts often send me seeking new ideas and information.  A quick Google search for conflicts in science yielded an article on such a conflict I had not known about which was quite dramatic and which spilled over into political and social realms.  It is an excellent example of what I refer to.

Making sense of conflicts in science – Shells and Pebbles

There is a reference in the article to Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”  I read it decades ago and also last year when I read it with a group of college alumni.  Very readable and an accessible explanation of how science progresses.  

My other point is that science is in constant motion.  Currently the pace of progress in many sciences is astounding.  All of us in this group are aware of how different the technology we enjoy (or not) today from what we had in the past.  Watch a TV show from a past decade and observe the technology (communication, computers, cars, etc.).  Doctors are required to update their medical knowledge every year (for which we must be thankful).  What was published a few years ago was probably superseded last year or earlier.  Here is an article about the current state of science writing, which is rather troublesome due to the existence now of online publications with low standards and no peer review.  That we have an anti-science movement today makes that even worse.  Here is a The Conversation article about that.

Early COVID-19 research is riddled with poor methods and low-quality results − a problem for science the pandemic worsened but didn’t create (theconversation.com)

The main thing is to understand that science is not static and orthodoxy is a barrier to science as is involvement of politics.  Even when highly qualified scientists say something, be skeptical.  No one has the last word, which, for me, is what makes science so interesting.