{"id":3752,"date":"2026-08-14T09:11:42","date_gmt":"2026-08-14T09:11:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/?p=3752"},"modified":"2026-08-14T09:33:00","modified_gmt":"2026-08-14T09:33:00","slug":"the-folly-of-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/?p=3752","title":{"rendered":"The folly of science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Editors, if not reporters, really should understand the meaning of words but often they seem to mis the point and are happy to quote a putatively authoritative figure even when he speaks out beyond his realm of expertise. It is very easy to do that, speak outside your realm of expertise, as Coco knows only too well, and in professional life must take especial care not to stray into areas which are either forbidden due to a lack of the appropriate piece of (electronic) paper or inappropriate for lack of skill. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

In this particular instance perhaps one could forgive a solar astrophysicist, or perhaps high energy particle physicist when he speaks, and gets it wrong, in the realm of the philosophy of science. It is in that realm that the opponents of Galileo became unstuck some five hundred years ago. If they had correctly understood the philosophy they would also have understood that Galileo’s hypotheses did not challenge the philosophy but merely simplified the mathematics, as Einstein, among others, were to clearly demonstrate some four hundred years later. Sadly however we all suffer, as Darwin did, from the lack of knowledge, and data, that becomes available to future generations and so continue in an undisturbed serene ignorance believing that the whole answer is just around the corner. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course it cannot be, even based upon their own paradigm that this universe had a beginning in a quantum fluctuation (a fluctuation in nothing you understand), has an ending, and conjecturally is just one of a countless number of other undetectable universes. If there are such a countless number, dare I say infinite?, then why not conclude that this universe is itself infinitely complex? I do not mean by that a very large number of complexities for that is clearly true, but rather a complexity to the bottom of which we cannot fathom. It is unfathomable. We shall never understand all that there is to be understood even about the apparently simplest of interactions in this universe, though we shall, if we work hard enough, be able to describe what is happening as we discover them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>
\n

Picture: NSF\/NSO\/AURA\/MPS\/BBC<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyway, to the point, what is the folly to which Coco alludes in the title? It is found in a BBC article, Indian solar mission’s new findings throw light on enduring Sun mysteries<\/a>. It was an interesting article presenting at a high level some very complex behaviours of magnetic fields in and around the Sun, well worth a read if you ignore the obvious error. . Coco wrote the the BBC about it: <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

In your article you quote without comment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The temperature variations in different regions of the Sun defy the laws of physics, says leading Indian solar astrophysicist Prof R Ramesh of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics (IIA) who led the study.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Surely, of all people,  Professor Ramesh should know that there is nothing in the Sun that defies the laws of physics? The laws of physics describe the behaviours of all aspects of the physical world around us, that world perfectly conforms to those laws. The issue is not defiance of the laws, but our understanding of the laws. If our understanding and description of the law does not accurately describe what takes place, then it is not the law that is at fault, it is our description of it that is incorrect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is on this principle of falsifiability that our modern science is built. If it can be shown that the world does not behave in the way that the hypothetical description gives, then the hypothesis is invalid and a new one should be postulated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whilst I appreciate that you were quoting the professor, the words he used are misleading and reinforce a false assumption made by many that scientists, often only so-called, are infallible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That said, the article was interesting and presented a viable mechanism for the transfer of energy from a low density region to a higher.<\/p>\nCoco<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

You, dear Reader, may consider the criticism to be harsh. It is not intended to be. It is important that those who have authority speak within their authority and do not present themselves as infallible arbiters of truth in all places. Even a solar astrophysicist should have some understanding of the philosophy of science, unless Coco has misunderstood and he does have such an understanding but is a disciple of a different branch of that philosophy than Coco is, a branch which says, contra legem<\/em>, that science is infallible. Indeed even in their own areas of expertise they should all be willing and ready to say This is how I see it today, but tomorrow’s science may see it quite differently than I, so I stand ready to be corrected at all times.<\/em> The words the professor used, as Coco said, reinforce the idea that scientists are always right, and lend support to the suppression of any one who questions any statement (not necessarily a scientific one) made by such a scientist. All data is open to interpretation. Statistical data is even more so. Data will be interpreted by our a priori<\/em> assumptions, ideas and paradigms. Such interpretations are dangerous for they are then biased towards the outcome that we are predisposed to accept. We fall into the trap of Galileo’s opponents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coco said in the note to the BBC: It is on this principle of falsifiability that our modern science is built.<\/em> It would be perhaps more accurately said: It is on this principle of falsifiability that our modern science (other than evolution which depends upon an external philosophical paradigm for its support) is built.<\/em> Coco omitted the words in parentheses in order to avoid introducing an irrelevant distraction from the primary correction of the esteemed professor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Post script: Coco confesses that the descriptions of the rupturing, snapping and reconnection of magnetic field lines is somewhat baffling having a rather primitive understanding of magnetic fields. He imagines that in order for a snap to occur in a continuous field there must be a fleeting singularity in the field. In a sense that is what a pole is, but is that what is happening here? Monopoles are envisaged but have we ever seen them? Or alternatively, is that what we are seeing here? But another understanding of a singularity is that it is simply a way of saying we do not, perhaps cannot understand it, though there is a mathematics of singularities. Even zero divided by nil has many finite answers many of which are close to if not equal to one. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Editors, if not reporters, really should understand the meaning of words but often they seem to mis the point and are happy to quote a putatively authoritative figure even when he speaks out beyond his realm of expertise. It is very easy to do that, speak outside your realm of expertise, as Coco knows only […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3752","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faith","category-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3752","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3752"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3752\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3765,"href":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3752\/revisions\/3765"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.purechocolate.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}