Testing Science at the Leading Edge... II

Here's my next entry on science at the leading edge (see
“Real” Science vs. “Cosmological” and “Origins” Science, Testing Science at the leading Edge).  Here I present an example of how we do science when direct experimental verification is not possible, which I have labeled 'option 2' in the previous articles.

So what do we do if a particular experimental confirmation may forever be out of range for Earth-based laboratories, where current technology is not sufficiently sensitive to detect an effect, or too many resources are required to run it. 

If a theory predicts an effect is too small for current technology to detect directly, is that proof that the effect does not exist?

According to many pseudo-scientists, the answer to this question is 'yes'.  They use these 'gaps' in current understanding to squeeze in their outlandish claims.  To isolate the full implications from their belief systems, they have established the categories of “Origins Science” (for Young-Earth Creationists) or “Cosmological Science” (for Electric Universe supporters). 

But consider how foolish such a claim looks in the light of some historical examples.

In 1990, there were NO planets known beyond those in our own Solar System.  Was this proof that no extra-solar planets existed?  At that time, even our own Solar System would be undetectable by the technology of the day even if it were around the nearest stars.   While I've yet to find any documentation that any creationists advocated that our Solar System was unique in all the universe, such a position would certainly be consistent with many characteristics of their beliefs.

By the late 1990s, when the technology finally reached the point where some of the more extreme types of solar systems could be detected, some creationists went so far as to try to dismiss the detections (see Another Failed Creationist Prediction?).

But you might think that these types of problems can only happen when researchers must rely on observation alone.  It can't possibly happen in laboratory science where one has controls on the experiment.  Could it?

Consider another example from the laboratory...

In 1930, subatomic physics was in a turmoil because the process of beta decay seemed to violate conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and even conservation of angular momentum.  Physicist Wolfgang Pauli postulated that an undetected particle, of very small mass, which did not respond to the electromagnetic or known nuclear force, could explain the discrepancy.  It would be called the neutrino.  With such an assumption, it became possible to construct a mathematical theory of how this particle did interact with other matter in the process of beta-decay and other interactions.  This theory enabled researchers to indirectly determine the characteristics of the particle, as well as refine the theory.  This work also enabled researchers to estimate the type of technology it would take to detect a neutrino in a more direct fashion.  This work would eventually pay off in 1955.

Lest these examples make one think that this case is only relevant in the more esoteric corners of science, and has no impact on our lives, consider the example from the previous part of Newtonian gravitation.

When humans launched the first satellites into orbit in 1957, there was NO laboratory confirmation of the inverse-square distance law of Newtonian gravitation!

Beyond the science fiction of Newton's day, did anyone seriously think that Newtonian gravity would or even could ever be subjected to a laboratory test? 

And if you relied on the astronomical observations, you just had two data points near the Earth - one on the surface, where the acceleration of gravity was measured as a constant to within the precision of the instruments, and the next one at the orbit of the Moon!  There were a few ballistic launches that covered some of this region, but the for most part, the theory of gravitation had 'gaps' that were hundreds of thousands and even millions of miles wide.

Yet with no laboratory confirmation, nations spent millions of dollars in a pursuit to launch satellites into orbit.  This was an effort that actually took a number of years to accomplish.  None of the nations involved started from zero - both Russia and the United States were actively pursuing these goals, but it was not until the launch of Sputnik was it clear that who was ahead in the effort. 

If the residents of a nation believed that only laboratory confirmation of a theory was sufficient to regard a theory as valid science, would they be willing to spend millions of dollars developing the capability to orbit satellites?  

What would the world be like today if U.S. science had adopted such a 'laboratory-only' policy on what qualified as science?

There are a few other examples I've found in scientific history where development of a critical technology would hinge on the reliability of astronomical observations.  I'll save some of those for a future article.