E.T. Phone Home - Part I

In the movie ET, ET assembled all of the items he could and knew the phone number to dial to reach his ship. Even though this was science fiction, it did hold to a basic precept of science and math. In order to complete a task, analysis or computation, you need sufficient enough information to make a proper conclusion or resolution to the topic at hand. What is counter to this basic premise is something called assuming.

Assume in this instance is defined as “to take as granted or true”. Outside of T-proofs in Geometry class, to assume anything in mathematics, science or general life normally leads to pretty bad results and conclusions. This general life fact has led to a slang definition of “assume”: When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

How does Mathematics (save geometry) look at assuming information? Quite simply, it doesn’t. You can’t assume information to fill in an unknown as it would make the calculations incorrect. The only answer to a question without sufficient information is two words – Insufficient Information. (In other words: We can’t tell. We don’t know. Not enough info.)

How does true Science look at assuming information? Similar to mathematics, it doesn’t lest it becomes what is called Junk Science. Junk or bunk science is a term used to describe purportedly scientific data, research, analysis or claims which are perceived to be driven by political, financial or other questionable motives. Another tell-tale sign is taking data, research, analysis or claims to generate conclusions that are leap of logic which usually ignores multitudes of other data that counter it. How is Junk Science countered? How is assuming countered in Science? The answer is simple: strict adherence to the scientific method. If there are demonstrable test results that challenge any hypothesis, model, or theory, then the hypothesis, model, or theory must be reworked to incorporate the results.

Let us examine one simple scenario from a mathematics and science standpoint. A group of students enter into a room to conduct a fact finding mission on candles. They are all broken up into groups and given 5 inch long burnt candles. No further information is provided. They are asked to measure the candle and answer some questions. How tall is the candle now? What rate did the candle burn? How tall was the candle before it was burned?

Should some student questions come from this? Of course, they should be asking what the conditions were in which the candle was burned. But for the premise of this experiment, no further information can be provided. Issues that will hinder the research of the students are in regards to the burn rate of the candle. The candle could have been burned slowly at a higher altitude that had less oxygen. The candle could have been burned fast in a high oxygen container similar to a hyperbaric chamber. Or the candle could have been blown out shortly after it started.

to be continued...