Proposal:Scientific measurements should have 'Uncertainty bars';

Scientific measurements often have error bars which gives reviewers an indication of the accuracy of the instruments used.

But I also think that 'uncertainty bars' would be useful, and make 'science' more honest and accountable than it is at present.

What do I mean by 'uncertainty bars' ?

As an example, I'll use radiometric dating:

Lets say a sample of basalt is 'dated' by radiometric dating to be 1 billion yrs old by the K-Ar system. Let's say the error bars are 1%.

Biblical creationists often point out that this result relies on unproveable and untestable assumptions, one of which is that radioactive decay has been constant over all this time. The problem is that we've only been measuring the rate of decay for this system for less than a hundred years. Because the decay has been constant over our time of measurement (well, almost anyway!), that certainly doesn't mean that it has been constant for one bill. years! - especially when only God knows what causes the strong and weak nuclear forces to exist.

The problem boils down to this - they are extrapolating outside of a measured dataset. Now I would be the first to admit that science would be useless if extrapolations outside of datasets were not allowed, but any honest person should also acknowledge that the further out from the measured dataset that an extrapolation is stretched, the less chance of it being true there is. Why? There can be unknown effects take over, or even sudden changes.

(Some things in nature have been observed to change suddenly, other things have been changed slowly by previously unforseen effects For sudden changes, think of an earthquake. For gradual changes, think of how quantum machanics takes over from Newtonian mechanics as the scale becomes sub-atomic: or how Einstienian special relativity takes over at speeds approaching c, or how General relativity will take over and cause a black hole through stretching of space).

I propose that the above measurement should be reported as "1 bill. years old with error bars of 1%, and uncertainty bars of 99.99999%". The uncertainty bars are calculated very simply by the ratio of the size of the extrapolation outside the measured dataset (in this case 1 billion less 100 years) to the extrapolation plus the measured dataset (in this case 1 billion years).

i.e. "percent uncertainty" = 999,999,900 yrs/ 1,000,000,000 rys * 100 = 99.99999%

I believe this would make science much more accountable, since very large extrapolations outside the dataset would have this reporting obligation, so thay they could not hide behind a figure that sounds certain to lay people.

What do you all think?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ralph Thurlow on February 1, 2012 at 4:09am

P.S. I imagine that if the science gurus ever did accept this proposal, it would clean up the field of science in so many ways. People would be able to trust the word 'science' once more.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard A. Meiss on February 2, 2012 at 8:46pm

Hi, Ralph -

At this point, I think that there is little to add to what I have been saying. I do suggest, however, that you familiarize yourself with the similarities and differences between INDUCTION and DEDUCTION and how these processes are actually used in scientific prediction and hypothesis testing.

I do agree, however, with your choice of words to describe your proposal. The word "fantastic" does suggest that there is some fantasy involved.

I also suggest, if your are serious about this proposal, then Creation Conversations is not a very effective vehicle to reach 'the gurus of science.' I suggest letters to the editors of Science, or Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, explaining your position. Better yet, you could address the editors of layman-type magazines such as Scientific American, New Scientist, Astronomy, Discovery, etc. This would surely get you closer to the mark than discussions with your fellow travelers on CC.

Finally, let me paraphrase your P.S. to your last post. Imagine if some religious reformers were successful; it would clean up the field of religion in so many ways. People would be able to trust the word 'religion' once more.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ralph Thurlow on February 4, 2012 at 6:13am

We are not talking about religion here, but rather the word of God and HIS story - history.

Concerning the correct forum, your suggestion is sort of like asking the foxes to stop eating the chickens isn't it? Not likely to achieve much.

Rather a better approach is to warn the chickens..............

Richard A. Meiss said:

Hi, Ralph -

     At this point, I think that there is little to add to what I have been saying. I do suggest, however, that you familiarize yourself with the similarities and differences between INDUCTION and DEDUCTION and how these processes are actually used in scientific prediction and hypothesis testing.

     I do agree, however, with your choice of words to describe your proposal. The word "fantastic" does suggest that there is some fantasy involved.

     I also suggest, if your are serious about this proposal, then Creation Conversations is not a very effective vehicle to reach 'the gurus of science.' I suggest letters to the editors of Science, or Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, explaining your position. Better yet, you could address the editors of layman-type magazines such as Scientific American, New Scientist, Astronomy, Discovery, etc. This would surely get you closer to the mark than discussions with your fellow travelers on CC.

     Finally, let me paraphrase your P.S. to your last post. Imagine if some religious reformers were successful; it would clean up the field of religion in so many ways. People would be able to trust the word 'religion' once more.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard A. Meiss on February 4, 2012 at 12:55pm

"Chickens" - What an appropriate analogy, and in so many ways.

Ralph Thurlow said:

We are not talking about religion here, but rather the word of God and HIS story - history.

Concerning the correct forum, your suggestion is sort of like asking the foxes to stop eating the chickens isn't it? Not likely to achieve much.

Rather a better approach is to warn the chickens..............

Richard A. Meiss said:

Hi, Ralph -

     At this point, I think that there is little to add to what I have been saying. I do suggest, however, that you familiarize yourself with the similarities and differences between INDUCTION and DEDUCTION and how these processes are actually used in scientific prediction and hypothesis testing.

     I do agree, however, with your choice of words to describe your proposal. The word "fantastic" does suggest that there is some fantasy involved.

     I also suggest, if your are serious about this proposal, then Creation Conversations is not a very effective vehicle to reach 'the gurus of science.' I suggest letters to the editors of Science, or Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, explaining your position. Better yet, you could address the editors of layman-type magazines such as Scientific American, New Scientist, Astronomy, Discovery, etc. This would surely get you closer to the mark than discussions with your fellow travelers on CC.

     Finally, let me paraphrase your P.S. to your last post. Imagine if some religious reformers were successful; it would clean up the field of religion in so many ways. People would be able to trust the word 'religion' once more.