In the beginning there was Hypothesis, and behold! The Hypothesis was good. The Hypothesis was with Science, and the Science with Hypothesis, and in their union, they began to forge a universe of law and order between them. But Hypothesis was not constant. After a while, Science realized that Hypothesis no longer fit the growing universe quite right, so Science introduced a laborious process with Hypothesis in order to make Theory. Science would only be in union with Hypothesis long enough to produce Theory. This was to be the first of many unions, for while Theory could have no other consort than Science, Science could have many unions with many different Theories. Hypothesis was content with this arrangement, because it became uncomfortable when it didn’t fit quite right.
In those days, Theory was said to be born of Hypothesis through the incredibly difficult labor of Experimentation. However, after many seasons together, Science and Theory became so comfortable together that it became unreasonable to go through the difficult process of Experimentation. Theory then became jealous of science and sought to raise its value at Science’s expense. After a lengthy discussion, Science agreed to rename Theory as Truth. Theory became very content with its new name.
Hypothesis became alarmed that it was no longer held in such high esteem by Science. It had held the position of precursor to Theory for so long, that it was difficult for it to not serve its purpose. There was no longer room for Theory, because Truth required no Experimentation, thus there was no need for Hypothesis in union with Science. Hypothesis reluctantly sat alone one day, until it was greeted by Political Agenda.
Political Agenda told Hypothesis that it, too, could become Truth just by saying so. Hypothesis was doubtful, but agreed to try it. After a period of many seasons, Hypothesis understood that it, too, could be Truth, just by repeating early and often. Since Hypothesis became truth without the laborious process of Experimentation, its union with Science was severed.
I’ve gotten several emails on this post so far, ranging from “WTF?” to proclaiming that I’m a “scientific anarchist” (whatever that means).
Keep ‘em coming. We’ll showcase the best in a mailbag on Sunday or Monday.
I totally understood the point. I also didn’t see it as humor as much as a reality check on what we are seeing as junk science today. Keep at it Pete…
I thought it was fairly brilliant.
Consider “WTF” a backhanded compliment. May your site always remain focused, but never completely predictable.
All I’m wondering is… “WTF” happened to get him on this particular tangent? That would be interesting to know. I’m a slow and deliberate reader already, but without context, this was like wading through deep mud… while wearing snowshoes. I find agreement with Pete’s general observation, but I’m sure my specific application of such leaves me standing solo. Some scientists seem less concerned with the scientific method than than they are with plausibility of concept (a good story)… and tall tales are for entertaining children or bilking fools with money.
Perhaps Pete you are referring to the “Global Warming” agenda? (Personally, I’m still keeping my eyes out for Man-Bear-Pig. Thanks much to Mr. Gore for the warning.) Maybe you are taking a pot-shot at pop-psychology or the legal and socio-sexual ramifications of pop-genetics. Come on, Pete… tell us what’s eatin’ ya.
1. Intelligent design.
2. The environmental lobby (which includes global warming)
3. The shameless pandering required of professional researchers in acadaemia competing for federal funds (from the NSF). They are forced to write grants in such a way that it feeds on the fear/anger cycle in the population.
4. The conversion of an empirical, rational methodology to one that serves the needs of those with a political and/or religious agenda.
Yeah, but you left out the part where truth got anally penetrated by the democrats.
I change my opinion… I liked it more when I thought it was about the “duality of man”.
“Intelligent Design” is a phrase that bothers me. It seems to be a PR stunt by which Creationism is white-washed and called by another name. This is a system of faith, not science… or rather, at best it is a hypothesis that has yet to acquire scientific evidence to support it. (As a faith issue I am OK with Creationism, but dressing it up as science appears deceptive in purpose. IMO I.D. is a tactic solely to debunk evolution, not a scientific search for origin.) I feel much the same way about evolutionary theory. It is accepted as fact without proof (which is an act of faith)… otherwise (with proof) it would be known as the LAW of evolution. It continues to fail to provide answers to the origins of life, yet because it is seems plausible and palatable it is hailed as the ultimate truth. Even Dr. Richard Dawkins, world renowned and published evolutionary biologist and atheist, admits that he cannot make the leap back from the most primitive single celled organism to the “primordial soup” without invoking the interference and seeding of extra-terrestrials. Strangely, he also has admitted that life appears to have a purposed design, but attributes that design to aliens instead of deity. What a crock. By this Dawkins forces us to look for the origins of life, not on Earth but, on another planet… who knows, maybe it was Krypton. This is not science. Imaginative, yet unproven, stories are not evidence. Show me the data. Show me the evidence, the proof… or call it what it is… just another system of faith.