The secret to scientific discoveries? Making mistakes | Phil Plait

Summary

This script debunks the myth that science is merely a collection of facts, emphasizing it as a dynamic process of inquiry and evidence-based understanding. It highlights the scientific method's iterative nature, from hypothesis to peer review, and the importance of admitting mistakes for progress. The speaker shares personal anecdotes and the story of exoplanet discoveries to illustrate the human aspect of science, its resilience, and its pursuit of truth.

Takeaways

• 🧐 Science is not just a collection of facts but a process and way of thinking aimed at understanding objective reality based on evidence.
• 🤔 The scientific method involves questioning, forming hypotheses, making predictions, and testing them to minimize bias and self-deception.
• 🔍 Hypothesis testing requires multiple observations and perspectives, including peer review, to validate or refute ideas effectively.
• 🌐 The process of science is iterative, allowing for the modification of hypotheses based on new evidence and repeated testing.
• 💡 Acceptance of a hypothesis in the scientific community is provisional and subject to change with the emergence of better ideas or contradictory evidence.
• 🙅‍♂️ Admitting when you're wrong is a crucial part of the scientific process, demonstrating integrity and paving the way for further discovery.
• 🌌 The story of the Hubble Space Telescope illustrates the difficulty of distinguishing faint signals from noise and the importance of acknowledging limitations in data interpretation.
• 🚀 The discovery of exoplanets showcases the perseverance and ingenuity of scientists, who, despite initial setbacks, continued to refine their methods and ultimately succeeded.
• 🌟 The first confirmed exoplanet system, found orbiting a pulsar, was a significant milestone, demonstrating that planets are not unique to our solar system.
• ✨ The astronomical community's response to认错, or admitting mistakes, with applause and support highlights the collaborative and forgiving nature of science.
• 🔭 The rapid advancement in the field of exoplanet research, from the first discovery to the identification of thousands of planetary systems, underscores the power of scientific inquiry and technology.

Q & A

What is the common misconception about science mentioned in the script?

The common misconception is that science is just a big pile of facts, whereas the script emphasizes that science is actually a process and a way of thinking.

What is the ultimate goal of science according to the script?

The ultimate goal of science is to understand objective reality based on evidence, not just to gather facts.

Why is minimizing bias important in the scientific process?

Minimizing bias is important because people are flawed and can easily fool themselves, so the scientific process includes ways to counteract this inherent human tendency.

What is the first step in conducting a scientific investigation as described in the script?

The first step is to observe something and question it, such as wondering why the sky is blue.

What is a hypothesis in the context of the scientific method?

A hypothesis is an idea that may explain an observation, such as the hypothesis that the sky is blue because it reflects the color of the oceans.

Why is it necessary to test a hypothesis and make predictions?

Testing a hypothesis and making predictions is necessary to see if the hypothesis holds true under different conditions and to validate its explanatory power.

What is the purpose of peer review in the scientific process?

Peer review serves to provide different perspectives and ideas, which can help refine and validate scientific findings, saving time and resources.

How should a scientist respond when their hypothesis does not perfectly explain the observations?

A scientist should modify their hypothesis and go through the testing process again, refining the idea over multiple iterations.

What is the significance of admitting when you are wrong in science?

Admitting when you are wrong is significant because it is part of the scientific process, allowing for the correction of mistakes and the advancement of knowledge.

What is an example of a scientific mistake mentioned in the script, and how was it resolved?

The script mentions the mistake made by Andrew Lyne and Matthew Bailes, who initially thought they found a planet orbiting a pulsar but later admitted their error after reevaluating their data.

What does the script suggest about the role of failure in scientific discovery?

The script suggests that failure is an integral part of scientific discovery, as it can lead to new insights and breakthroughs, such as the eventual discovery of the first exoplanet system.

How has the understanding of the universe changed due to scientific advancements mentioned in the script?

The understanding of the universe has changed dramatically, with the realization that planets may be more common than stars, and that there are thousands of exoplanets, a concept that was unimaginable to earlier generations.

Outlines

00:00

🔬 The Scientific Process and the Importance of Admitting Mistakes

This paragraph discusses common misconceptions about science being merely a collection of facts and emphasizes that science is, in fact, a process of thinking and understanding objective reality based on evidence. It highlights the human element in science, which is prone to bias and error, and explains the scientific method involving observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing, and peer review. The speaker shares a personal anecdote from working on the Hubble Space Telescope, where they initially thought they had found a planet orbiting another star but later had to admit they were wrong. The paragraph concludes by stressing the importance of admitting mistakes as a strength of the scientific process.

05:00

🌌 The Evolution of Exoplanet Discovery and the Value of Persistence

The second paragraph delves into the historical quest to discover planets beyond our solar system, a question that has puzzled astronomers for centuries. It recounts the story of two astronomers, Andrew Lyne and Matthew Bailes, who initially claimed to have found a planet orbiting a pulsar but later had to admit their mistake due to an oversight in their methodology. The narrative then shifts to Aleksander Wolszczan, who successfully discovered the first exoplanet system, demonstrating the importance of persistence and integrity in scientific research. The paragraph concludes with a reflection on the rapid advancement in the field of exoplanet detection, leading to the understanding that planets may be more abundant than stars in our galaxy.

10:01

🌟 The Profound Impact of Science on Our Understanding of the Universe

In the final paragraph, the speaker reflects on the profound impact of scientific discovery on our perception of the universe. It highlights the journey from knowing only a handful of planets to recognizing the potential abundance of planets around other stars. The paragraph underscores the role of scientists in building observatories, collecting data, learning from mistakes, and contributing to a collective understanding of our place in the cosmos. It concludes by celebrating the human aspect of science, which allows for the pursuit of truth and the advancement of knowledge.

Keywords

💡Science

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In the video, it is emphasized that science is not just a collection of facts but a process of inquiry and critical thinking aimed at understanding objective reality based on evidence. The script illustrates this by describing the scientific method, which includes observation, hypothesis formation, prediction, and testing.

💡Misconceptions

Misconceptions refer to incorrect or partial understandings about a particular subject. The speaker clarifies a common misconception that science is merely a 'big old pile of facts,' highlighting that the true essence of science lies in its investigative process rather than the accumulation of data.

💡Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, which can be tested through experimentation and observation. In the context of the video, the hypothesis is a crucial step in the scientific method, where the speaker uses the example of the sky's blue color and the hypothesis that it might be reflecting the ocean's color.

💡Prediction

A prediction in science is a statement about what will happen if a hypothesis is true. It is a logical consequence of the hypothesis and is used to guide experiments. The video script mentions a prediction that if the sky's blue color is due to ocean reflection, it should appear bluer on the coasts than inland.

💡Peer Review

Peer review is the process by which scientists evaluate each other's work to ensure that it meets the community's standards of quality and validity. The script highlights the importance of peer review in the scientific process, suggesting it as a means to refine ideas and save resources by avoiding unnecessary experiments.

💡Admitting Mistakes

Admitting mistakes is a critical aspect of the scientific process, allowing for the correction of errors and the advancement of knowledge. The speaker shares a personal anecdote about the Hubble Space Telescope, where the inability to confirm a potential discovery of a planet led to the admission of an incorrect interpretation of the data.

💡Scientific Community

The scientific community refers to the collective body of scientists and researchers who contribute to the development of scientific knowledge. In the script, the community is depicted as provisional acceptors of theories until new evidence or better explanations emerge, emphasizing the dynamic and self-correcting nature of science.

💡Exoplanet

An exoplanet, or extrasolar planet, is a planet that orbits a star outside our solar system. The video discusses the historical challenge and eventual discovery of exoplanets, marking a significant advancement in our understanding of the universe's planetary systems.

💡Scientific Method

The scientific method is a structured approach to investigating and understanding the natural world, involving steps such as observation, hypothesis formulation, experimentation, and conclusion drawing. The script uses the scientific method as a framework to explain the process of scientific inquiry and its importance in achieving objective understanding.

💡Human Traits

Human traits refer to the characteristics and behaviors inherent to people, which can influence scientific work. The speaker acknowledges that scientists, being human, bring their traits such as ego, stubbornness, and bias into their research, which must be recognized and minimized to maintain the integrity of science.

💡Astronomy

Astronomy is the scientific study of celestial objects, space, and the physical universe as a whole. The video script uses astronomy as a context to discuss the history of discovering planets beyond our solar system and the profound implications this has for our understanding of the cosmos.

Highlights

Science is not just a collection of facts but a process and way of thinking aimed at understanding objective reality based on evidence.

The scientific process includes minimizing bias and involves observation, hypothesis formation, prediction, testing, and peer review.

Admitting when you're wrong is a crucial part of the scientific process, which can be difficult but is essential for progress.

Hypotheses are tested and refined through repeated experimentation, potentially leading to provisional acceptance by the scientific community.

The speaker shares a personal anecdote about working on the Hubble Space Telescope, illustrating the challenge of distinguishing faint planetary signals from bright stars.

The importance of being able to give up on a hypothesis when faced with contradictory evidence, despite emotional attachment to one's own ideas.

The story of the first claimed discovery of a planet orbiting another star, which was later found to be a mistake due to unaccounted Earth's motion.

The value of integrity in science, as demonstrated by the astronomer who admitted his mistake and was applauded by his peers for his honesty.

The actual discovery of the first exoplanet system by Aleksander Wolszczan, which confirmed the existence of planets around other stars.

The rapid advancement in the field of exoplanet research, leading to the discovery of thousands of exoplanets and the realization that planets may outnumber stars.

The profound impact of scientific discoveries on our understanding of the universe, emphasizing that planets are ubiquitous and not just limited to our solar system.

The role of human traits, such as ego and stubbornness, in the scientific process and the need for scientists to be aware of these biases.

The importance of collaboration and peer review in refining scientific theories and ensuring the accuracy of scientific findings.

The speaker's emphasis on the human aspect of science, suggesting that being wrong is an opportunity for learning and discovery.

The transformative effect of scientific progress on our perception of the cosmos, moving from a universe with a handful of known planets to one teeming with countless exoplanets.

The story of the scientific community's response to mistakes and the subsequent discovery of the first exoplanet system, highlighting the resilience and adaptability of scientific inquiry.

The speaker's final message that science is at its best when it embraces its humanity, emphasizing the value of honesty, integrity, and the human drive for understanding.

Transcripts

Now, people have a lot of misconceptions about science --

about how it works and what it is.

A big one is that science is just a big old pile of facts.

But that's not true -- that's not even the goal of science.

Science is a process.

It's a way of thinking.

Gathering facts is just a piece of it, but it's not the goal.

The ultimate goal of science is to understand objective reality

the best way we know how,

and that's based on evidence.

The problem here is that people are flawed.

We can be fooled --

we're really good at fooling ourselves.

And so baked into this process is a way of minimizing our own bias.

So sort of boiled down more than is probably useful,

here's how this works.

If you want to do some science,

what you want to do is you want to observe something ...

say, "The sky is blue. Hey, I wonder why?"

You question it.

The next thing you do is you come up with an idea that may explain it:

a hypothesis.

Well, you know what? Oceans are blue.

Maybe the sky is reflecting the colors from the ocean.

Great, but now you have to test it

so you predict what that might mean.

Your prediction would be,

"Well, if the sky is reflecting the ocean color,

it will be bluer on the coasts

than it will be in the middle of the country."

OK, that's fair enough,

but you've got to test that prediction

so you get on a plane, you leave Denver on a nice gray day,

you fly to LA, you look up and the sky is gloriously blue.

Hooray, your thesis is proven.

But is it really? No.

You've made one observation.

You need to think about your hypothesis, think about how to test it

and do more than just one.

Maybe you could go to a different part of the country

or a different part of the year

and see what the weather's like then.

Another good idea is to talk to other people.

They have different ideas, different perspectives,

and they can help you.

This is what we call peer review.

And in fact that will probably also save you a lot of money and a lot of time,

flying coast-to-coast just to check the weather.

Now, what happens if your hypothesis does a decent job but not a perfect job?

Well, that's OK,

because what you can do is you can modify it a little bit

and then go through this whole process again --

make predictions, test them --

and as you do that over and over again, you will hone this idea.

And if it gets good enough,

it may be accepted by the scientific community,

at least provisionally,

as a good explanation of what's going on,

at least until a better idea

or some contradictory evidence comes along.

Now, part of this process is admitting when you're wrong.

And that can be really, really hard.

Science has its strengths and weaknesses

and they depend on this.

One of the strengths of science is that it's done by people,

and it's proven itself to do a really good job.

We understand the universe pretty well because of science.

One of science's weaknesses is that it's done by people,

and we bring a lot of baggage along with us when we investigate things.

We are egotistical,

we are stubborn, we're superstitious,

we're tribal, we're humans --

these are all human traits and scientists are humans.

And so we have to be aware of that when we're studying science

and when we're trying to develop our theses.

But part of this whole thing,

part of this scientific process,

part of the scientific method,

is admitting when you're wrong.

I know, I've been there.

Many years ago I was working on Hubble Space Telescope,

and a scientist I worked with came to me with some data,

and he said, "I think there may be a picture

of a planet orbiting another star in this data."

We had not had any pictures taken of planets orbiting other stars yet,

so if this were true,

then this would be the first one

and we would be the ones who found it.

That's a big deal.

I was very excited,

so I just dug right into this data.

I spent a long time trying to figure out if this thing were a planet or not.

The problem is planets are faint and stars are bright,

so trying to get the signal out of this data

was like trying to hear a whisper in a heavy metal concert --

it was really hard.

I tried everything I could,

but after a month of working on this,

I came to a realization ... couldn't do it.

I had to give up.

And I had to tell this other scientist,

"The data's too messy.

We can't say whether this is a planet or not."

And that was hard.

Then later on we got follow-up observations with Hubble,

and it showed that it wasn't a planet.

It was a background star or galaxy, something like that.

Well, not to get too technical, but that sucked.

(Laughter)

I was really unhappy about this.

But that's part of it.

You have to say, "Look, you know, we can't do this with the data we have."

And then I had to face up to the fact

that even the follow-up data showed we were wrong.

Emotionally I was pretty unhappy.

But if a scientist is doing their job correctly,

being wrong is not so bad

because that means there's still more stuff out there --

more things to figure out.

Scientists don't love being wrong but we love puzzles,

and the universe is the biggest puzzle of them all.

Now having said that,

if you have a piece and it doesn't fit no matter how you move it,

jamming it in harder isn't going to help.

There's going to be a time when you have to let go of your idea

if you want to understand the bigger picture.

The price of doing science is admitting when you're wrong,

but the payoff is the best there is:

knowledge and understanding.

And I can give you a thousand examples of this in science,

but there's one I really like.

It has to do with astronomy,

and it was a question that had been plaguing astronomers

literally for centuries.

When you look at the Sun, it seems special.

It is the brightest object in the sky,

but having studied astronomy, physics, chemistry, thermodynamics for centuries,

we learned something very important about it.

It's not that special.

It's a star just like millions of other stars.

But that raises an interesting question.

If the Sun is a star

and the Sun has planets,

do these other stars have planets?

Well, like I said with my own failure in the "planet" I was looking for,

finding them is super hard,

but scientists tend to be pretty clever people

and they used a lot of different techniques

and started observing stars.

And over the decades

they started finding some things that were pretty interesting,

right on the thin, hairy edge of what they were able to detect.

But time and again, it was shown to be wrong.

That all changed in 1991.

A couple of astronomers --

Alexander Lyne -- Andrew Lyne, pardon me --

and Matthew Bailes,

had a huge announcement.

They had found a planet orbiting another star.

And not just any star, but a pulsar,

and this is the remnant of a star that has previously exploded.

It's blasting out radiation.

This is the last place in the universe you would expect to find a planet,

but they had very methodically looked at this pulsar,

and they detected the gravitational tug of this planet as it orbited the pulsar.

It looked really good.

The first planet orbiting another star had been found ...

except not so much.

(Laughter)

After they made the announcement,

a bunch of other astronomers commented on it,

and so they went back and looked at their data

and realized they had made a very embarrassing mistake.

They had not accounted for some very subtle characteristics

of the Earth's motion around the Sun,

which affected how they measured this planet going around the pulsar.

And it turns out that when they did account for it correctly,

poof -- their planet disappeared.

It wasn't real.

So Andrew Lyne had a very formidable task.

He had to admit this.

So in 1992 at the American Astronomical Society meeting,

which is one of the largest gatherings of astronomers on the planet,

he stood up and announced that he had made a mistake

and that the planet did not exist.

And what happened next --

oh, I love this --

what happened next was wonderful.

He got an ovation.

The astronomers weren't angry at him;

they didn't want to chastise him.

They praised him for his honesty and his integrity.

I love that!

Scientists are people.

(Laughter)

And it gets better!

(Laughter)

Lyne steps off the podium.

The next guy to come up is a man named Aleksander Wolszczan

He takes the microphone and says,

"Yeah, so Lyne's team didn't find a pulsar planet,

but my team found not just one

but two planets orbiting a different pulsar.

We knew about the problem that Lyne had,

we checked for it, and yeah, ours are real."

And it turns out he was right.

And in fact, a few months later,

they found a third planet orbiting this pulsar

and it was the first exoplanet system ever found --

what we call alien worlds -- exoplanets.

That to me is just wonderful.

At that point the floodgates were opened.

In 1995 a planet was found around a star more like the Sun,

and then we found another and another.

This is an image of an actual planet orbiting an actual star.

We kept getting better at it.

We started finding them by the bucketload.

We started finding thousands of them.

We built observatories specifically designed to look for them.

And now we know of thousands of them.

We even know of planetary systems.

That is actual data, animated, showing four planets orbiting another star.

This is incredible. Think about that.

For all of human history,

you could count all the known planets in the universe on two hands --

nine -- eight?

Nine? Eight -- eight.

(Laughter)

Eh.

(Laughter)

But now we know they're everywhere.

Every star --

for every star you see in the sky there could be three, five, ten planets.

The sky is filled with them.

We think that planets may outnumber stars in the galaxy.

This is a profound statement,

and it was made because of science.

And it wasn't made just because of science and the observatories and the data;

it was made because of the scientists who built the observatories,

who took the data,

who made the mistakes and admitted them

and then let other scientists build on their mistakes

so that they could do what they do

and figure out where our place is in the universe.

That is how you find the truth.

Science is at its best when it dares to be human.

Thank you.

(Applause and cheers)