Re: Talking to the "public"

[scherer@uiuc.edu (David Scherer)]

Wade Patterson said, in part:

> "Fitting" to a model is unnecessary. An informed public can judge for
themselves.
and
>5.  Honesty and ethics demand that a clear description be given of actual
>observations without "fitting."

I wish to point out that the use of "models" and fitting data to them is an
essential element of the scientific process, especailly for the physical
sciences.  For centuries scientists have endeavored to distill the basic and
salient features of phenomena and express them in mathematical form.  For
example, Newton's Law of Gravitation is nothing more than a mathematical
model of observations about the attraction of masses at a distance.  It has
not been tested with every possible pair of masses at every possible
distance.  Yet the inverse-square model has proven very useful.  Coulomb's
law has not been tested with all combinations of variables, yet it is quite
useful.  Both of these models break down when used outside their realms of
applicability (QM and GR).  But we do not throw out the models because they
cannot be used in all realms nor do we attack the motives of those who
formulated them.  In fact, a table of force for various masses (or charges)
and distances would not be good science.  Perhaps we should discuss the
region over which the linear model is useful, but modeling _per_se_ is not bad.

Sometimes the same phenomenon is described by several models.  For example,
ICRP-2 used a very simple model to calculate internal doses.  ICRP-30 was
more complex, so its results are more accurate the result and more useful.
But the simpler model is not wrong, just less useful for some predictions.
We use these models even though they are gross simplifications of human
physiology.  The use of a very simplistic model is not wrong, unethical, or
unprofessional.  As radiation biology becomes more mature, the model will be
more complex and more accurate.  Almost no one believes that all the
complexity of the human response to radiation can be completely described by
a single varable.  But it is a goal of science, not an abbrogation of
science, to describe phenomena in mathematical terms.

>8.  The present perceptions of the public, of professionals, and of officials
>are a direct result of being unaware of actual observations of human response
>to radiation. The present perceptions are a result of seeing the "fitted"
>data rather than actual data.

I disagree.  The public is afraid of global warming even though it is
unproven.  The public is afraid of many unproven "dangers" in the
environmental.  It is difficult to site even a normal, municipal landfill in
which the public has used every item disposed of there.  I do not share the
belief that the public reactions are learned from scientists and that they
can be corrected by explaining the limits of  observation.  IMHO the
reaction is based on a personal, subjective value system, not reponse to
factual information.  In a democracy, people have a right to be wrong.

Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu