Memories of the 28th Century

Just as astronomers, etc. have created a standard model of the cosmos, and physicists have created a standard model of matter and energy. There has also been a standard model for living in the U.S.A., All of science is tentative, subject to revision and based on the preferences of some of the people who created the standard model. The standard models are convenient, because they explain many things and allow specialists to look at the iffy spots and to find inconsistencies.

For example, I recently read an article that suggested that the standard model of particle physics needs rebuilding, because there is no quantum theory of gravitation, and that means that there is no transfer particle. That doesn’t surprise me, because I opined to that effect to a physicist with whom I want to high school at a reunion a couple of decades ago.

The standard model of the climate never really worked, even though the “climate scientists: kept claiming that it was unassailable fact. Climatologists have always known that climate changes, and it changes in unexpected ways. To try to make it fit the data, government scientists altered the original temperatures that didn’t fit with their standard model. The original data still exists, but it is not readily available.

The medical people have even more variations in their standard model, and there is dissonance between the pharmaceutical companies and the science. For example, the old chestnut about cholesterol causing heart disease has been shown to be mistaken many times, and there is evidence that shows that arterial plaque appears to start form platelets apparently trying to repair the lining of arteries.

In many cases, one can determine the validity of a standard model by looking at who defends it, or who shows counter arguments. With cholesterol the big pharma companies try to make people believe the standard model, while researchers are finding alternatives that might be more successful.

The climate activists generally back the standard model of climate, because they are social activists who want to turn the world into a socialist paradise (or this is the only consistent theory that I have found). Any time when people alter data to make it fi their conclusion, I think the other side of the matter probably is right.

Another standard model in society is about affirmative action. There was a huge argument about that back when it was first dreamed up with people on one side saying that victims of oppression need help, and the other side saying that discrimination is discrimination, and it is wrong in any and every case. For a few decades, the pro-Affirmative Action people were winning, but the recent Supreme Court banning discrimination in college admission put the ant-discrimination people on top. This struggle isn’t over, not yet.

A larger question is whether anyone should care about the standard models of anything, or what we should do with them. In science, the standard model is something to work from. For the last two hundred years, physics has played around with its standard model, and it has added to or revised many parts, and it has kicked out pieces, and some of those rejects have been added back in, often under a different name. And one theorist often terms that were new and different for things that were old and common.

It is interesting that in the medical field different ideas come and go, and they often depend on financial backing. The cholesterol myth is just one example.

I recently noticed that the ozone hole is still part of the climate mythology, even though that was kicked into dust decades ago. Not only was there no hole in the ozone layer, but the high concentrations of hydroxyl radicals in the stratosphere break down any large molecules that get there, so there couldn’t have been any freon getting to the ozone layer. But I shouldn’t confuse those people with facts.

The wider question is how to pound the facts into people’s minds. The news media have been repeating the standard modes for so long that they think those are basic facts. And they seem to think that certain opinions are actually either fact or maybe sacrosanct. Maybe we should start a religion that will push actual facts, and make people chant science in unison.