I'd like to use an example taken from today's news as a
"thought-demonstration":
The following news article dated 18 Sep 07 can be found at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20838944/?GT1=10357
Villagers fall ill after fireball
hits Peru
A fireball fell from the sky and slammed into southern Peru over
the weekend, creating a huge crater that emitted a sickeningly
smelly gas, local authorities said. More than 600 villagers fell
ill, the Peruvian radio network RPP reported Tuesday. Video reports
from the scene, near the remote Andean village of Carancas along
Peru's border with Bolivia, showed what appeared to be a
100-foot-wide (30-meter-wide), 20-foot-deep (6-meter-deep) impact
crater with a bubbling pool of water at the bottom. Authorities
said that the crater was made Saturday by a falling meteorite.
Agence France Presse quoted a local official, Marco Limache, as
saying that "boiling water started coming out of the crater, and
particles of rock and cinders were found nearby."
Limache told RPP that the gases emanating from the crater caused
nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headaches and stomach pain so much so
that authorities were considering calling a state of emergency.
Villagers decided not to drink the water in the area because they
regarded it as contaminated in the wake of the impact, RPP
reported. Experts from Peru's Geological, Mining and Metallurgical
Institute, or Ingemmet, were reportedly on their way to the village
in the country's Desaguadero region to evaluate the health
risk.
A scientific process would involve researchers going to the site of
the crash to take physical samples of the rock, water, ground, etc.
There will be lab examination of the samples and evaluation of the
health threat posed to the villagers due to toxic fumes emanating
(as a result of natural physical and chemical processes) from the
crash site. Apart from chemical and human health studies,
biologists can determine threats to wildlife in the area,
astrophysicists can research upon the physical properties and
pre-crash dynamics of the meteorite. The scientists (fr various
fields of specialisations) will adopt a methodological process to
determine the cause and effect of this phenomenon.
However.....
In contrast to the above, a non-scientific or pseudo-scientific
process will not involve methodological studies as I've
outlined.
Most likely a person with little/no knowledge of scientific
methodology (e.g. a victim of cultist superstitions) will jump to
conclusions and make wild proclamations/speculations. Quacks may
see this incident to be the sign of the apocalypse and that this
meteorite is a herald of Wormwood. Or the quack will give other
wilder speculations like the gods are wrathful or that the heavens
are trying to "teach Mankind" a lesson for their arrogance. Or
'pseudoscience' quacks will exclaim that this "space rock" contain
alien lifeform that is a precursor of an invasion.....without
bothering to first study the "rock" and verify their wild
hypothesis. Such false "prophets" spread wild rumours that can very
well forment unrest among susceptible villagers....or worse, they
can con people into subscribing to irrational beliefs.
In fact this is happening as can be seen in the following quack
sites:
http://www.theapocalypsetimes.com/bloggin/
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=a6c70a2533f1cb95d42ee2fcbf0e1de8&t=14461&page=2
(most likely more such unsubstantiated "paranormal postings" will
appear on the Net in the days to come)
Science, on the other hand, takes a well-reasoned approach. Science
does not jump to wild speculations or invoke superstitious beliefs
to "fill the gaps" in explaining the natural world. Of course, at
times technical errors may be made, but at the end of the day,
science is self-correcting and when more/better data comes in,
improved hypothesis can be formulated.
Science is certainly more trustworthy than paranormal beliefs.
