Stepping into the Royal Society of London, the UK’s foremost National Academy of Sciences, you’ll encounter a three-word phrase: Nullius in Verba. This motto, held for over 350 years, translates to “I accept no one’s word.” Essentially, trust in science must be based on empirical evidence.
But what qualifies as evidence? This aspect becomes a bit more nuanced. The assertion that the sky is blue can be easily substantiated by anyone who can see it; therefore, little further proof is necessary. However, if someone claims the sky is purple, we’d need a robust explanation for our apparent oversight.
Another famous saying, attributed to astronomer Carl Sagan, encapsulates the demand for solid evidence: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This issue highlights several notable recent examples that fall short of that standard.
The first example resonates strongly with Sagan’s perspective. Recently, astronomers proposed they detected gases potentially indicative of extraterrestrial life in distant exoplanets, but subsequent analysis suggests they may have found nothing. There’s also a significant backlash from biotechnology firm Colossal against the International Union for Conservation of Nature, alleging it “clears” threats to the wolf population.
The work of science is, as always, to dig deeper in hopes of revealing the truth.
There is considerable excitement surrounding these claims, with many hoping they prove true, but unfortunately, they do not hold up. We are committed to accurately reporting substantial claims, as seen in our discussion about the assertion that light is not subject to wave-particle duality, but consists solely of quantum particles.
This is indeed an extraordinary claim, challenging a century of established physics. As we explore, the evidence to substantiate this notion is currently lacking, though physicists remain intrigued enough to pursue further investigation. Without clear evidence disproving the claim, the essence of scientific inquiry remains: to dig deeper in hopes of uncovering the truth or, at the very least, our best approximation.
topic:
Source: www.newscientist.com
