How Science is Done

kw: opinion, observations, scientific method

While it is on my mind. Some of the nonfiction books I've read this past year contain side narratives on the process of scientific process. They touch a deep chord with me, because of experiences I'll cover only in part.

For my dissertation research, I studied heat flow in geologic settings. At the same time, I had two consulting projects, one for a mining company, one for a hydrologist. At depths exceeding 7,500 feet in one mine, I was surprised to find huge amounts of water flowing about. I recalled other mines I'd visited (there have been many), and water was always in motion. Then, for the hydrologist, I participated in a survey of groundwater in all formations to a depth of about a kilometer under an entire western state. I remember being told that the "impervious" layers between the aquifers were really just "less pervious". The analogy was, an aquifer is like a steep slope down which water can freely flow, while a "less pervious" layer, an aquitard, is like a much gentler slope, from which water will flow aside if it has a steeper slope to follow.

Putting these together with my research, I soon determined that most heat flows in the Earth's crust, not by conduction—like heat moving through a metal—but by the flow of heated fluids, mainly salty water, between hotter and cooler regions.

Another factor: at the time (70s and 80s) there was much debate over the best way to store spent nuclear waste. A company with much influence in the upper Midwest was making a ton of money doing studies of various "dry" formations, such as salt and granite, to see whether they could safely store 'used' uranium and plutonium for a few million years.

Now, I had concluded that the ratio of convected to conducted heat (Peclet's Ratio) was nearly always greater than one. A colleague and I wrote a paper showing that, in the least porous rock known, ordinary hydraulic pressures will move water at rates of a meter or so per century, and this will carry more heat around than the "normal" thermal conduction through the rock. Guess what happened when we tried to publish? Guess what happened to those chapters of my dissertation?

I discovered the human side of science. It is like the elephant in the corner. It is much bigger than the 'objective' side.

Over the next twenty years, first one, then another, part of my work was duplicated by others—who dwelt in less hostile climes, scientifically—until the whole is now 'common knowledge' among hard-rock geologists.

Perhaps you know the Baconian model: make lots of observations, organize them, and deduce trends you can test. Based on more observations, guided by the trends (models or hypotheses), refine until you can formulate a theory. Do you know how most scientific progress is made? By someone who propounds a theory that irritates someone big. The key is to get it into print. If nobody responds, keep working and print more. Eventually, someone will respond, and the best possible result is if that someone attacks the new theory. If you can get a media battle going, so much the better. Once you have enough in print, publish a "synthesis" monograph. At that point, there will be a significant body of irritated, even enraged scientists out there, who will bust their asses trying to prove the theory wrong. Maybe they will, and maybe they won't disprove it, but lots of good science will be done.

Just by the way, the most recent issue I've seen of "New Scientist" contains an article touting the work of a few scientists who find much is lacking in the Standard Cosmological Mode, which includes mainly the Big Bang, Inflation, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. They think it is all bunk, and they've managed to get into print. I gleefully await the outcome.