It's very easy to satisfy the human mind. It's very easy to stay satisfied. The human mind wants to be satisfied, it does not want the truth. Consult any list of fallacies to see the difference between facts and satisfaction. The true nature of the universe is very complex and hard to understand.
Thus we have science. Science, as a practiced art, is a way to delay satisfaction of the mind. My mind will not be satisfied about question X until certain questions are answered.
(Bear with me) It can be very clearly observed that the Sun goes around the Earth. Every day I can observe this. I am satisfied. It is ONLY when other questions come up, that I must become unsatisfied and make more observations, and come up with a new theory.
I may observe the phases of the moon, and see that the Sun shines on the lunar surface from a certain angle. This observation is not consistent with the Sun orbiting the Earth, as I know that the Moon is closer to Earth than the Sun; thus the daily Lunar cycle should match Earth's cycle. My observations are not consistent. (There's also a lot of other evidence, but I like this one).
In fact, it is just an illusion caused by the Earth spinning round.
====
Science communicators need to talk about tests a lot more - what mental model is an expert using, and how do they test that model? How is evidence incorporated into that model to update it?
It's very easy to satisfy the human mind. It's very easy to stay satisfied. The human mind wants to be satisfied, it does not want the truth. Consult any list of fallacies to see the difference between facts and satisfaction. The true nature of the universe is very complex and hard to understand.
Thus we have science. Science, as a practiced art, is a way to delay satisfaction of the mind. My mind will not be satisfied about question X until certain questions are answered.
(Bear with me) It can be very clearly observed that the Sun goes around the Earth. Every day I can observe this. I am satisfied. It is ONLY when other questions come up, that I must become unsatisfied and make more observations, and come up with a new theory.
I may observe the phases of the moon, and see that the Sun shines on the lunar surface from a certain angle. This observation is not consistent with the Sun orbiting the Earth, as I know that the Moon is closer to Earth than the Sun; thus the daily Lunar cycle should match Earth's cycle. My observations are not consistent. (There's also a lot of other evidence, but I like this one).
In fact, it is just an illusion caused by the Earth spinning round.
====
Science communicators need to talk about tests a lot more - what mental model is an expert using, and how do they test that model? How is evidence incorporated into that model to update it?