solar planets

solar planets

« Previous12345Next »

Where would we be today without science proving that caffeine is good for us? Oh, I'm sorry it hasn't. It seems that the scientific community supported by its self-proclaimed gold standard - the scientific method (TSM) - is unsettled about the good (or bad) affects caffeine has on humans. On any given day you may read a contradictory research report touting a scientific "fact" about caffeine. So, despite all the research within the paradigm of the scientific method (TSM) we find ourselves like Hamlet - questioning, "To drink caffeine or not to drink caffeine...that is the question." My intuitive guess is that we will never scientifically know if caffeine is good for us.

Where would we be today without the "fact" presented by astronomer Ptolemy in 140 AD that the Earth is the center of our solar system? Oh, I'm sorry, it isn't. It seems that in the late sixteenth century astronomers Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler advocated the other "fact" that the Sun is the center of our solar system and the Earth is just one among many planets orbiting the Sun.

Since the 1930's we've all been made aware of the "fact" that our solar system has nine planets. A mnemonic system has even been devised to help us more easily memorize the nine planets in order of their distance from the Sun. The planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are represented by the first letter of each word in the following sentence presenting the planets in their proximity to the Sun: Man Very Early Made Jars Stand Up Nearly Perpendicular. Oh I'm sorry; it seems that we now have only eight planets.

Seventy-six years after it was labeled a planet, in 2006 Pluto was re-categorized a dwarf planet. The new "fact" is that Pluto is part of the Kuiper Belt, a disk-shaped region beyond the orbit of Neptune extending roughly 50 Astronomical Units (very, very, very, very, very far away) from the Sun and consisting mainly of rock and ice.

To us average folk the above may be insignificant bits of information. Information that certainly will not determine the number of cups of coffee we drink in a given day. However, the above is quite noteworthy in demonstrating that at its very best science can provide only working hypotheses - certainly not "facts" as it claims.

It also seems that science and the community that comprises it may be a bit more grandiose than is for our own good. While I'm sure explanations abound for discrepant scientific conclusions I'll offer two: (1) a lack of sophistication of instrumentation (2) a misinterpretation of information by the scientist. Both are within the realm of reason.

However, scientists thump their chests like the apes from which they claim we were descended, proudly proclaiming that science is the "only answer" and their "proof-of-credibility" is their continual self-correction. In the act of self-correcting scientists hold The Scientific Method (TSM) in the highest esteem as a flawless paragon of excellence providing "facts." In this sense is science comparable to the lawyer who defends himself and has a fool for a client?

To their credit scientists admit that correction is necessary. However, my bewilderment lingers like the itch of a nagging mosquito bite. Does hubris compel the scientific community to label new findings "facts" rather than what they are - temporary information, or a new working hypothesis?

By definition a fact is - a truth, a reality, an actuality, and a verity. The life blood of a scientist is rationality. Most rational people would admit that information subject to change at any given moment is hardly a "fact."

It is, however, a fact that the scientific community is comparable to none in its pomposity and arrogance as it continues to dub new findings "facts." Let's ponder this fact over a cup of caffeine laced java as we watch the Sun revolve around us and gaze at our ninth planet Pluto, shall we?

Author Bio: Patricia Brozinsky, PhD, writer and keen observer of human behavior has been a psychotherapist for seventeen years, private practice in East Patchogue, NY. She taught psychology at a local college and co-lead workshops along with James A. Gibson, PhD for Suffolk County, NY Department of Mental Health. She and Jim coauthored "Eat or Be Eaten: The Truth About Our Species, The Marriage of Darwin and Machiavelli" a book about human behavior. Her articles and essays have been published at: EzineArticles and http://www.ascentaspirations.ca/tableofcontents.htm Her personal websites are http://www.re-inventingyourself.com and http://www.wild-wisdom.com

Star Scale Montage - NASA Sun Solar Planets - PHJ - www.PHJ.ca