Room to Evolve

These two words are heavily loaded with cultural context and definition.

The colloquial definition of skepticism is "someone who disagrees."  Often in the context that they're being "hard headed" or "disagreeing just to disagree"; the list goes on.  In this light it portrays skepticism negatively, and creates a culture in which questioning is something bad to do.

But questioning itself isn't inherently bad.  Nor does questioning automatically mean you disagree.  And likewise, disagreeing doesn't mean you're being skeptical.  Being skeptical also doesn't mean you doubt, and not being skeptical doesn't mean you don't doubt.

Being skeptical simply means you're wanting more evidence to support the claim being made.

Now this is where it can get a bit convoluted.  What is evidence?  Evidence is a body (or collection) of knowledge / information (to support a claim).  What then is knowledge and how does one gain it?  This is an enormous topic in itself.  I'm only really going to be scraping the surface here... well, just barely poking it, maybe.

Colloquially, knowledge is defined as a binary of "true" and "false", "fact" and "fiction."  Either or.  But knowledge isn't binary.  Rather, it's a gradient of certainty based on testability AND free of bias (to our best extent possible).

In which case a fact translates "to the best of our knowledge."  As in, an accumulation of evidence, explanations, and how everything relates. (Yes, knowledge is based on previous knowledge, and so on and so forth.  You can keep asking why and how until you get down to the smallest, most fundamental interactions.  So knowledge in how it's presented is also based in which context you're using it in.)

This is an important distinction.  If something were assumed absolutely true, there would be no questioning it, in which case knowledge would become stagnant.  You would be less likely to look for a better explanation and more information, even in the face of contradiction.  There would simply be no growth in that area.

This goes hand in hand with skepticism, in which you consistently question everything.  Even the knowledge you do have is falsifiable and is questioned and up for scrutiny by everyone (peer review).  This is really the basis for science.

Again, this is barely an introduction to these subjects.  But I feel is a good starting point.  The next blog will most likely be a very brief introduction on logic and reason, and I'll throw in more bits on how these subjects relate to skepticism and knowledge as well.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  Thank you for reading. :)

There's a plethora of blogs, websites, and articles that post science or science-related information and findings.  Cosmological findings, quantum mechanic developments, neuroscience, etc.  However, there's just as much, if not more, pseudo-science out there.  How does one distinguish science from pseudo-science?  The issue is made more relevant when both are essentially presented in the same format.  Slap a label on it saying "Genuine Science", by a scientist (or a few), and it's done.

I used to think that many people were for the most part willingly ignorant.  In a world where information is readily available at a moments notice, how can someone accept pseudo-scientific information over real science?  But it recently dawned on me that these same people aren't necessarily declining to accept science, but rather they haven't been taught the appropriate mental tools in order to weed through all the claims and separate the two.  Perhaps to most people, science and pseudo-science are indistinguishable.  Again, the issue is complicated when both are presented in about the same manner.  Presented simply as facts and findings, headlines to grab attention, etc.  The "oh look, this is cool" style of spreading information.  And this style of reporting science news is not much different than our own education system (US).  It creates this concept that science equates to information presented to you, without actually teaching what science is and what it's about.

The truth is, science isn't information.  It's a method, a process, a mindset.  It should be able to stand alone, separate from the knowledge it brings about.  In this sense, you should be able to insert science into any culture or civilization, and they would be able to come up with the same knowledge about the universe, given enough time.

Teaching about science is more important than teaching scientific findings.  Again, if one doesn't understand science, how can we expect them to separate science from pseudo-science?  We can't.  Think about how this translates to society as a whole.  The consequences are more dire than most realize.  This isn't an overstatement or fear-mongering.  For instance, we have elected politicians who are science-deniers (ie: global warming, evolution, vaccinations), which affects policies and laws.

Now, explaining what science is can't really be stripped down to one blog, or some quick and simple route (like school textbooks, which end up lying about what scientific method is).  So I'm going to break it down by the various concepts, each with their own blog (or two).

My main goals are to educate others on what science is really about and hopefully dispel misinformation.  I also hope to encourage questions or even submissions on what to write about next.

Here's a brief list (not complete) of some of the topics I will attempt to cover (in no particular order): Philosophy (such as Philosophy of Science), History of Science, what Knowledge is (and the various attempts at defining it, such as "Justified true belief"), Critical thinking, logic, reasoning, skepticism, mathematics, explanation of various related terms, arguments and examples, and explanation of scientific peer-review.

Before I end this blog post, however, I want to dispel some misinformation about what scientists in general.  A lot of people seem to believe that scientist are cold-hard-logical thinkers and that creativity and imagination aren't required.  This simply is not true at all.  Yes, science takes logic (many forms of), but it also takes equal amounts of, if not more, imagination.  Quantum mechanics, general and special relativity, evolution, are all examples of findings by thinking outside the box.  It takes thinking away from "conventional wisdom" and things that are preconceived in order to make progress and make discoveries of the universe around us.  Most things simply aren't the way we perceive them to be.  Science REQUIRES an imaginative mind; it is absolutely essential.

Well, that wraps it up for now.  For those reading, if there's a particular topic you would find more interesting or would like to know more about first, please feel free to "ask", or if you have any related questions.  Thanks for reading.  :)

At first the book gives a great summary of the history of certain physics as well as cosmology within the last century or so.  All leading up to the question of how our universe came about, as well as many other implications.  The punch line is that it is plausible, based on empirical evidence, that our own universe came from Nothing.  It sounds outrageous, but yet this is what our current understanding of the universe suggests.

To begin, Krauss goes to some length to give a description of Nothing, to make it useful in not just a scientific meaning, but also in any discussion.  When asked what "nothing" is, most people would say something akin to "empty space" or just "space," that we send our spaceships and satellites through to get to other objects, like the Moon or Mars.  It is most commonly thought of as a void that is utterly empty.  But as the link I provided describes, this is actually not the case.  The astounding fact is that "empty space" is anything but Empty.  It is "filled" with electromagnetic waves and particles that continuously pop into and out of existence.  This phenomena has been dubbed "Dark Energy."  And it accounts for approximately 70% of the total mass-energy of the entire universe.  Which means the total mass-energy of the universe is mostly Nothing.

This might sound insane, but absolutely true.  It fits perfectly within the Big Bang theory (such as cosmic inflation), cosmic expansion, general relativity, and quantum mechanics; physics and cosmology.  (The link provided gives details about what evidence stacks up for Dark Energy.)  But not only does Nothing permeate through "space" as we like to categorize it, but it is all throughout everything.  For example, proton particles get most of their mass from Nothing.  "Stuff" is mostly "nothing."

Now, before I continue, let me go back to the title of the book.  More specifically the "Why."  Krauss explains in his book that when scientists ask "why," they really mean "how."  Just sometimes "why" is colloquially more acceptable or easier on the ears.  So the title should read "How."

And with that, at the end of his book, Krauss explains how it is plausible that our universe came into being as it is in this state from Nothing.  The mere fact that "nothing" contains energy because particles pop into and out of existence all the time makes it plausible in and of itself.  But on a grander scale, he describes a few hypotheses.

(Disclaimer: Keep in mind that this is my own take on it from one reading of his book. And I am fully aware that my interpretation of it could be lacking in sorts, but I will try and convey the information as best as possible.  If I find it needs revising, I will do so in the future.)

One plausible explanation has to do with cosmic inflation itself.  That our universe is really just a "bubble" broken off of an infinite source of potential energy (infinitely small and infinitely dense).  This is plausible via quantum fluctuations, Dark Energy, and other phenomena that we know exist.  In which case there is potentially an infinite amount of other universes that are constantly being "broken off," but causally disconnected.  Perhaps another way to describe it, is a part of that energy shifts and begins inflation.  Inflation describes expansion, via dark energy, which is negative-pressure.  Hence our own little bubble universe, as it is causally disconnected due to its own expansion.

Another plausible explanation is that whole universes can "explode" out of Nothing, as an entirety of a universe becomes more and more flat.  As Krauss explains in his book, the shape of our universe is flat.  Or almost flat.  It could have began closed but as expansion accelerates due to Dark Energy, our universe becomes more flat over time.

The shape of our universe could have been either of three: open, closed, or flat.  This describes the curvature of space-time.  A closed universe would come full circle, expand then contract and restart.  A flat universe means that expansion is constant and will accelerate.  Looking back at the history of our own universe, we can actually "see" the tipping point where Dark Energy has pushed our universe from a closed one to a flat one.

Our universe is also asymmetrical because during inflation, due to quantum fluctuations and phase shifts, normal matter (or what's normal to us) began to dominate over anti-matter, but just slightly.  Hence why we have "stuff."  If it were symmetrical, our universe would simply be radiation, as matter and anti-matter would have been distributed evenly and would have annihilated itself.

But as our universe expands, Dark Energy will eventually completely take over.  "Stuff" will no longer exist.  The total mass-energy will be a complete quantum vacuum.  This is also a state of infinite potential (sound familiar?), as I described earlier, particles pop into and out of existence all the time out of nothing.  This leaves room for the same mechanics as described in the Big Bang model to "begin" a new universe.

Now keep in mind that these are hypotheses that have yet to be tested or to find evidence for (direct or indirect).  But simply, that based on our current best understanding of the universe, it is quite possible that "existence" is eternal, in that Something will always come from Nothing.

There is a lot that I didn't explain here (particles-antiparticles, virtual particles which are the particles that pop into and out of existence, cosmic microwave background, just to name a few things).  And because of this I doubt I did the book any justice.  For those interested, I recommend getting the book from your local library if they have it (or perhaps request if they could get it), or purchase it.

You can also find a video of Krauss' first presentation of this (in which the book was written to further explain) here.

It's important to understand doxa because we can't understand another culture or perspective if we can't see past our own. This is especially important when it comes to science, because doxa taints how we interpret scientific findings as laymen, and may even influence what we study. In her book Straight: the Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality, Hanne Blank points out that while we research women's supposedly elusive sexuality, it's rarely thought of as a purely physical component. I tweeted her to ask if the idea that men's sexuality wasn't as nuanced as women's could be considered doxa, and she said, "Absolutely." It's a social perception that men want sex in any way they can achieve it. This not only dismisses the existence of male asexuals, but it backs up another problematic idea, that men can't control their sexuality, which in turn contributes to our violent rape culture.

Superficially, we might all live in the same culture, but any demographic or component that can be used to group humans also denotes a cultural line: race, gender, sexual orientation, age, region, body type, religion. Two people can grow up side by side yet in different cultures, absorbing and internalizing different doxa.

It does no one any good to chalk something up to "common sense". Even if you have little interest in finding the root of that belief, it's in the interest of general empathy and compassion to consider why it may not be "common" to another person. It's in your best interest, too, because it means you learn.

We live in an age of globalization. While it means we have incredible access to materials, information, and resources we didn't before, it also means we encounter culture we haven't before on an astonishingly frequent basis. In relation to our own doxa, we can either resist or deny that culture, ignore it (whether actively or passively), or engage with it. If we choose to engage, it might mean questioning some of the presumptions of our own culture and what role it plays in our lives. It can be a scary, scary thing, especially when that questioning clashes with what we've been taught, or the base on which our relationships rest.

And it doesn't stop there. We go through this process every time something challenges our worldview: resist, ignore, or engage. Even if we've engaged in a particular topic or idea, we still have that choice. We can seek out knowledge, but action also begs that question: do we resist that knowledge by blogging about why it's mistaken, or telling our friends about how stupid that book was, or otherwise by continuing to decry it? Do we ignore that knowledge altogether, by not discussing it, or assuming it has no use, or that others already know it? Do we engage with it, by asking for other perspectives, discussing it, and otherwise trying to expand your view on it?

Whether or not we realize it, these are choices we make every day. They may help or harm us. When you say, "Well, that's just common sense," you're making a choice. You're saying, "I'm not entirely sure if this is a good decision, but I'm trusting in the history of my culture that says it is."

Is it?