Has Science Ever Answered a Question with 'We Don’t Know'?
One of my favorite stories revolves around a journalist who pestered a scientist about the possibility of life on other planets. The scientist would simply respond, 'Nobody knows,' a reply that echoed each time the journalist inquired. As the deadline approached, the journalist sent a telegram, dating the story back to the scientist, requesting 2000 words on life on other planets. The scientist responded with 'Nobody knows' repeated over and over, a poignant display of the complexities inherent in scientific inquiry.
Struggles in Scientific Research
As a Psychology undergraduate, I specialized in the "hard science" aspects of psychology, primarily physiological psychology. I frequently encountered the conclusion that 'we don't know.' These realizations stemmed from the difficulties in measuring minute phenomena. The quantities involved were so small that they were beyond the detection limits of the available tools. It was only after a genius proposed the innovative idea that living tissue could react to such tiny amounts that a new technology called 'bioassay' was developed. This technology allowed us to accurately measure the strength of neurotransmitter solutions, even down to the level of a few drops in an Olympic swimming pool.
Advancements in Measurement Tools
My undergraduate experience allowed me to engage with this groundbreaking technology. Using a strain gauge, cotton, and a tiny piece of recently deceased rat's intestine, I was able to construct a remarkably precise measurement device for neurotransmitter strength. This was a significant milestone, as it allowed us to move beyond mere speculation about the release of neurotransmitters into the post-synaptic gap. Textbooks often reported, "that we think this is what happens but we don't really know," reflecting the limitations of our measuring tools at the time.
Continual Advances in Science
I became a faithful participant in the Science cafés held monthly in Bristol, hosted by the British Society for the Advancement of Science. These events brought together experts from the three universities in the area. A recurring theme was the impact of improved instrumentation on scientific discoveries. As new technological advancements in measuring tools were implemented, we gained the ability to measure phenomena with unprecedented accuracy.
The key insight is that achieving high levels of accuracy is dependent on the precision of our measuring instruments. However, it is worth noting that we are not disgraced for theorizing about things that are currently beyond our detection limits. Rather, it is through these speculative theories that we pave the way for future advancements in science. The process of scientific inquiry is one of constant iteration, pushing the boundaries of what we know and understand.
Conclusion
The story of 'we don’t know' highlights the continuous nature of scientific inquiry. While these phrases can often be seen as frustrating obstacles, they are also valuable indicators of the frontiers of knowledge and the gaps that need to be filled. As measuring tools continue to improve, so too will our understanding of the world around us.