Galileo the scientist and his telescopes

"Trust"
08/30/2008 Hit Counter
This set of pages is a jumble of observations ,demonstrations, and methods to help in the Battle of increasing trust in science. It should be a blog where on could be working together Mining the data on this site to generate many new ways of solving the problem of trust.

Who are Jim & Rhoda and what are their qualifications in this Battle? 781 245 2897 e-mail Galileo@comcast.net

Galileo's job is not finished

Please Stop for a few minutes to look at and understand about helping science using Galileo's story and these telescopes. to help bring more "trust" in scientist and their discoveries.

Some thoughts that might be considered by those putting together programs about achieving more trust in science by the Grand General Public using Galileo as a symbol.
First off: Galileo's letter (March 19th 1610 to the Tuscan court) is a typical example of one of many ways scientist prove that you can trust their data. In Galileo's case he makes every effort for you to test his discoveries by showing his critics with telescopes that he furnishes or how to replicate such an instrument to check his observations for them selves. Scientist to day do the same thing by providing all the detail of their experiment through open journals in enough detail so that others may check the results or even replicate the authors observations if necessary.

But let us look at this issue in a crude un kindly way. A way using the common sense of the average person with a neutral or worse no love with science and states this quite clearly.

One why of looking at trust in a black and white format i.e. yes or no reasons, common sense reasons, common language reasons.

The following examples can help show in a more understandable way, more practical way, a more common sense way , that honesty and scientist, are very close companions.

Unfortunately it does this at the expense of showing scientist in a different light, an unflattering light, suggesting that they do not live in any semblance of an ivory tower. It shows the less than noble side of scientist in their work.

We need a shared common language, to help everyone understand the issue of trust. It is the powerful language called shared emotions. The emotion of being absolutely wrong especially when lying publically and bring rebuked publically and continually for the rest of you life and or career being treated as stupid fool that you would be is strong language any healthy person can understand. This is the common language helping us understand why scientist in their work Are very unlikely to falsify, miss represent, miss interpret or over state their data.

Below is stated ten emotional reasons why scientist are forced through natural emotions to treat their work more carefully and with more honestly than in most other professions.

1, In addition to the standard refereeing of scientific literature there is intense internal monitoring and cross checking between scientists over new and old measurements in their field of science that are used in making a new discovery. Often new discoveries are highlighted from testing old theories with more powerful instrument where old theories are replaced. This is process is often referred to as waffling by the critics of science.

2, There is very stiff competition among scientists to be test-ably right. also to be first. To be first and wrong is the absolute holy un-grail of science.

3, There is a compulsive need to search out mistakes in the work of others so that one can be sure they are right hopefully they maybe wrong then you can discredit their work so you can be first with the correct results. the competition is fierce, the competition, in big time science, usually is against super bright, super fast scientist. The is less random discovery than most critics think. There is more small steps in the process of discovery than the critics recognized.

4, Discoveries are like the links in a chain. These discoveries are published with references connecting the new work with preceding work by others as well as their own. Their work will be referenced by others in future projects on and on. This is how weak data is soon weeded out.

5, That old links are constantly being updated.

6, There is an enormous genetic drive to be correct, especially in science where the measurements can and are being constantly tested.

7, That "to be right" is like a primeval need we all share and can understand.
Think about this: As you read the above statement your first inclination is to say, ”Oh yeah? Who says so?" (:-( That inclination is the scientist in you working away at testing something new.

8, Scientists make their living being right and first not first and wrong.

9, Falsifying any of their experimental data, it's certain it will be found out and advertized to all. The falsifier will quickly lose their sponsors, their pride and their reputation. Further any of the work they have published will be up for even closer inspection or most likely discarded as junk. Days weeks months years of sweating out your measurements in the lab gone if they are wrong because mistakes or false data never goes away. Never, Never, and Never.

10, Example of #9; Remember the church has not lived down even after almost 400 years their challenge to Galileo's discovery. They have used every ploy to explained their decisions one of them is that Galileo was not polite enough in their disagreement. This may be true but that's the dangerous aspect of truth and trust. There is generally no easy way out of being wrong, it's the worse thing that can happen to any body, Especially a scientist that want to be a Newton or Einstein.

Any profession that does not deal in the measurement world of time, length, and mass as science does can give everything else a bad perpetration for reliability which forces all of us concern for anything new.

Doubt is good and is foremost in every ones interest. Contrary to science's critics belief, doubt is one of science's most useful tool.

Trust me is a very suspicious and most demobilizing statement. However contrary to most other professions science only works using self policing. Unfortunately professions that do not or can not self police spread and hide their mistakes and lies causing doubt in everything else we experience including science.

Only though an emphasis in our education system about trust and how it works in science can we reduce this mistrust in science and derive its full benefit.

Exceptions: In some higher stations referred indirectly above ; grammar and poor spelling can be consider worse than lying. No oneever zaid that scientst wer prefect in everthing, espesialy thoughes dats righting dis web sight.

We invite you to Click here to read a special scientific paper published in Science, May 18, 2007 discussing a serious local and global threat to our science ""Childhood origins of adult resistance to science"? It is coauthored By Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg (Yale) and focuses on neuroscience and evolutionary biology but there is evidence that it's true for most all branches of science including astronomy. We have created our own Abstract of this important paper for you to consider. The following Includes text in blue font which are quotes we have taken from the original paper. The comments in black font are our comments.

While researching and replicating Galileo's Telescopes We discovered another replication that was taking place, which was the replication of the lack of support of basic research in science today, especially in the U.S.A. , Just as there was lack of support 400 years ago.
A recent informal survey conducted by the authors of over 400 people indicates that almost 80 % of the people on the street when asked do scientist lie in their published papers said yes!

Galileo's story on an international bases is a well documented case study, reminding us that these telescopes stand as symbols of a long held prejudicial miss understanding against basic research.
We are all victims waiting on the side lines while the various factions in this debate work out their differences so that we can get on with the basic scientific research and turn this knowledge into ways that will give us a fuller, healthier, safer life as it already has shown that it can do.

The authors suggest that Galileo---- this one man---- and his telescopes represents in a simple, elegant and dramatic and important way, all the aspects of what technology and its mistrusting antagonists are about in 1600 and to day. One is compelled to ask Isn't it the time for both sides to work together to gain a better understanding of each others point of view with data so we can work out a compromise that we can resolve this dilemma and we can get on with the research we all so badly need.

There is a beautiful case study buried in this 400 year old story that is both unique and valuable because each phase of the complex and often hidden important business of doing basic research is all rolled into one type of instrument and one scientist. All the tasks of doing science are being played by one actor, in a one act, one prop play with Galileo playing all the parts. Today research is done by teams of scientist and has become very complicated to extract out the many steps needed to understand how discoveries are made and used i.e. the business of basic scientific research. Unfortunately the dialog for such a play is spread thought out the literature filled with errors of a personalized nature waiting to be complied into a single script minus all the media melodrama that clouds the issues.

Click here For more ways of looking at the same issues to consider.

This web site suggest that Galileo's story as told through the telescopes can stands as a mile post showing us what is going on today by looking at 1600 AD and measuring our progress and understanding of this prejudice that sadly still exist today, which we call the Galilean syndrome.

400 Years Ago 1600
A dramatic picture, a dramatic story, a dramatic lesson for all of us In the 21st century

News flash
Galileo Galilei SCIENCE TEACHER on trial FOR TEACHING THE EARTH CIRCLES SUN -- faces being BURNED ALIVE AT THE STAKE
Warning: Pernicious Galilean Syndrome, a dangerous myopic anti science disease is again infecting our society

400 years later 2000 +
A dramatic picture, a dramatic story, a dramatic lesson for all of us In the 21st century

James-E-Hansen-NASA29jan06.jpg News flash James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies on trial before the U.S. congress for warning the public that man is making the earth dangerously warmer. If true who will be faced being burned at the stake this time?

One of the country's leading climate scientists, has testified "the White House (Politicians & Oil Companies) repeatedly tried to control what government scientists say to the public and media about climate change." It has been reported that 181 changes were made by non science political appointed officials, to three scientific climate reports reflecting a consistent attempt to emphasize the uncertainties surrounding the science of climate change and undercut the broad conclusions that man-made emissions are warming the earth. Hansen also said "Interference with communications of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career,"

Symbols of Progress and the Galilean Syndrome?

The Galilean Syndrome
Galileo's telescopes are especially important today because they stand out as symbols warnings us to keep   constant vigil against those that would turn us away from science, its methods and tools.

The Pernicious Galilean Syndrome its always there!
The support and funding of basic scientific research so vital to us in the U.S. and the world, has come under attack again by a few powerful, charismatic, zealous, leaders repeating the same mistakes of myopic judgment that Galileo had to contend with 400 years ago,

In spite of science's success it is always vulnerable to influential misguided leaders ready to summon their followers to take our basic scientific research away from us. These followers go after their congresspersons threatening their reelection for supporting science. Although relatively small in number they are well organized have proven to be very effective.

Scientist can not solve the problems they are given without adequate funding. They need our help and support. There are so few scientists compared to the world's population including the very active dissenters that their warnings and cries for help are too weak to be heard by the general public.

The cure for Pernicious Galilean Syndrome takes less than five minutes a year; Most of us do not appreciate that we are automatically part of the science team. We don't need a degree in science or take courses in science to be a very important contributor to the progress of
The Beautiful Home of Galileo's Telescopes

science and their are allot of us on the team. However, we do need to stop taking science for granted and we do need to actively start supporting it!
As members of the science team we have a vital role.
We need to bring to the attention of our congressman the critical need for our government to strengthen its interest and support for basic scientific research.   All aspects of our future depends on it.

Yes most of us understand the value of basic scientific research.   Yes we are large in numbers, and want it supported, but we must be vigilant, contacting our congressman showing our support in numbers that at least match the dissenters.

Galileo's famous and dramatic telescope story is repeating itself today and we as well as the dissenters are the victims of this Pernicious Galilean Syndrome.

In the foto above is part of the team Jim & Rhoda, best of friends, husband and wife, grandpa and grandma, physicist and chemist, hanging around Galileo's neighborhood. Here we are in front of the extraordinary museum where Galileo Galilei's telescopes, his other famous instruments, and his index finger reside. The museum lies on the banks of the beautiful Arno River in Florence. Galileo is buried just down the street and is still teaching science (and the danger of Pernicious Galilean Syndrome) to the public visiting his stylish crypt in the Santa Croce Church. He and his telescopes are still in there fighting for science. Don't let him down. Join him in the fight

More Detail on how you can help
Ref.**

The war on modern science has been an ongoing crises that science has continually faced from at least Galileo's time to the present, or more exactly from mans earliest evolution, but yet still has not been solved satisfactorily (even with all the "smarts" in the scientific community )..
Most of us take for granted that science ^ man’s curiosity of how nature works^ has had an enormous impact on society. Academically It is as important as reading, writing and arithmetic. Even to those who feel uncomfortable with science, it is obvious to them, that living without science's discoveries would be akin to returning to a pre-caveman’s life or less.---

Important as it is, science has and is taken for granted. This has and is endangering its progress.

Box 1; Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg (Yale)
" It is particularly worrying that national surveys reflect a general decline in the extent to which people trust scientists. 1 in 5 American adults still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is somewhat shocking—but the same proportion holds for Germany and Great Britain. It is no secret that many American adults reject some scientific ideas. In a 2005 Pew Trust poll, for instance, 42% of respondents said that they believed that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Many believe in the efficacy of unproven medical interventions, the mystical nature of out-of-body experiences, the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts and fairies, and the legitimacy of astrology, ESP, and divination. The list is quite large."

Our comments
This lack of trust is very bad for the progress of science by reducing the funding of good science.
The traditional teaching of modern science, has not changed substantially over 400 years, i.e. at least since or before Galileo's time. Despite scientists' successes in their discoveries they seem to have failed to generate the equivalent success in trust of science by the Grand Majority. This trust is needed by the Grand Majority to gain funding for basic research to maintain its support and respect for its results A, science is the life blood of continued growth of our country B, needed to find scientific solutions for majors problems we face C, and for the employment opportunities of future generations. This lack of trust has major negative consequences to all of us. and again we have to work on that element a lot harder and differently then we presently are.

Box ;2 Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg continued.
Even today "One reason why people resist certain scientific findings is that many of these findings are unnatural and unintuitive. In some cases, there is such resistance to science education that it never entirely sticks, and foundational biases persist. If this is right, then resistance to science cannot be simply addressed through more education; something different is needed."

We believe that the only difference needed to increase the trust among the Grand Majority is to change the emphasis and the style of how we teach the trust of data in science to the Grand Majority . It needs a stronger emphasis using common sense points to help Grand Majority understand how how scientist maintain fidelity in their work .It needs more common sense examples demonstrating how scientist constantly check each others work because of the very strong competition between them to be right. Teacher's need to show using commonsense approach that scientist lose the game if they are wrong. Teachers can not use enough commonsense examples showing real life examples of how and why measurements are made and how they are presented in the open literature for everyone to see and check. Teachers need many more examples of how all scientific work is checked by fellow scientist in that field who are depending on this data. The Yale authors’ concern in their paper, for the wide rejection of some scientific ideas, is broadly shared by many other scientists, education institutions, by parents and citizens in this country and abroad. All the major journals repeatedly have editorial discussions about this lost of trust, funding and student participation in science. The problem is real, it is there, and it is waiting to be solved by spending much more effort on teaching in common sense examples of the natural desired for everyone to be proven through documented repeated measurements that they are right. That when a scientist is accused of being wrong the accuser has to back up their accusation with repeatable measurement checked refereed by peers. Teachers need to use common sense examples using measurements not just words to prove their point about who is right. Opinions using words alone without repeatable measurements don't work in proving who is right or wrong in the world of scientific discoveries where physical measurement of time, length, and mass are the tools of the game and mathematics is the language of description --- not words because they have no absolute meaning.

How does one solve this diminishing trust problem;
The obvious answer to solving this problem is to put much more TIME in teaching how trust is achieved in the scientific community We can only do this through our teaching institutions , The public media can not help much for obvious reasons. It has been traditional to use the language of mathematics and the traditional technical descriptions' of the scientific method in our teaching institutions but this has not worked to rid us of this mistrust of science and of scientist and their data. In some cases it has even creating a dimmer opinion of trust in science and its data. We suggest that these institutions should use the language of the Grand Majority, the language of common sense, when talking about the personal motives that drive this honesty.

There already exists more than enough tools, simple enough, cheap enough, and powerful enough, to effectively increase the trust in science and its data by the Grand Majority especially their children.

From Box 3; Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg (Yale)
The structure of scientific inquiry involves procedures, such as experiments and open debate that are strikingly successful at revealing truths about the world.

Who are those that are creating this miss trust and why? Something we know about and have little control over are the out side influences the businesses that try to sell us their products (intelligent design is an example) in our teaching institutions. Remember the (Grand Majority) are the target of the businessman, priest or politician who are at war against, certain fields, certain discoveries in science. These three groups are sources of negative trust campaigns ,Galileo and the church for example, to save their products from damage. The surveys discussed in Bloom and Weisberg show that the businessman, priest or some politician are succeeding in slowing down our science by focusing on creating a mistrust in the Grand Majority for scientist and their data which are not favorable to their profits. For our point "profit" can also be defined as control of the Grand Majorities opinions. Unfortunately while the attack maybe intended toward a given investigation in science many times the Grand Majority takes it to include most all science.

from Box 1; Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg (Yale)
It is particularly worrying that national surveys reflect a general decline in the extent to which people trust scientists.

The down side; It is important to isolate the teaching of the trust in science and its data from some or all of its complicated tech jargon which can and often is confusing, its math, and odd choice of words. It is self defeating to use very specialized science projects which depended on advanced math or are " unnatural and unintuitive" science to teach trust. They may be fun, like magic and show how smart the teacher may be but they don't have the clarity for the development of trust between scientist. and the grand majority they serve. The issues chosen for teaching trust in scientific data would be helpful, save time, and energy by all if the examples were chose from subjects that are practical, useful, and relevant.

The up side; Trust unlike science has a large component of emotion in it rather then analytical thought. This is one of the reasons we are in so much trouble getting the trust we need for it. To do science one has to rely on hard cold measurements unemotionally analyzed. Trust for many things we don't understands is an emotional issue. Some scientist believe that they have identified the chemicals that drive our neurotransmitters and common sense to give us intuitive and emotional trust! How about using emotional drive and common sense in teaching trust..

The intention of such a program would to give the greater public 1st grade up a much clearer view of how trust is developed and maintained in the scientific community. and take the control of trust issue out of the hands of those who use it to spread miss trust of scientific data. As the course is developed it should be given over and over again as the students develop in their education. This technique is the back bone practiced in other professions such as the church which depends on pure faith, and the advertisement media which hammers away time after time on selling their products. Perhaps science should do this also, but is science that important?

Asking if science is important is like asking the question is gravity important.
The grand majority of the public takes science for granted just as they takes gravity for granted. Galileo worried a lot about gravity in developing experiments of the acceleration of gravity for tracking cannon balls and aiming cannons. He tried to convince some of his colleagues light and heavy canon balls fell at the same rate some disagreed with but would take the time to check this out. All they had to do was check it out. The grand majority take their “curiosity” which is a form of scientific inquiry for granted as they take gravity for granted.

But think about the consequences if either gravity or our curiosity had been turned off. From these examples clearly science has an enormous impact on society It is as important as reading, writing and arithmetic. In fact our curiosity gave us reading writing and arithmetic.
There is some truth about teaching science to the larger public, who already have an appreciation for the things of science but have absolutely no intention of ever going into science. The grand majority should not have to bear the extra burden of learning additional languages (that of math and the scientific jargon of science) to learn about how scientist do their work especially to learn how scientist preserve honesty and accuracy in their work.

Box ;3 Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg
"Given the role of trust in social learning the community of scientists has a legitimate claim to trustworthiness that other social institutions, such as businesses religions and political movements, lack. -The structure of scientific inquiry involves procedures, such as experiments and open debate that are strikingly successful at revealing truths about the world. All other things being equal, a rational person is wise to defer to a geologist about the age of the earth rather than to a businessman, priest or to a politician."

We have tried that paragraph above before. Its the position that has not worked. It is too complicated and indirect and only supports the feeling of miss trust.

Consider the relative merit of the method above with the following common sense understanding of how people deal with being right and being wrong. Commonsense suggest that scientist are genetically driven as everyone else is by an overwhelming power of competition about being right, and being first most everyone knows what its like to be first taking a very strong position only to be wrong. Example of this take place everyday. A drive we all have seen, share, and personally understand. How does this help us understand about trusting scientific data. Some scientist will plead that they're out there for the good of man kind. That may be so but how does this compare with the same strong emotional competitive drive of being right and first maybe going down in history as an Einstein or a Newton.

How about added the following example; There is built into everyone's body chemistries of trust neurotransmitters, dopamine, oxytocin, etc. electrochemically drive our level of trust. For the scientist it is driving them to reach the right conclusions from their measurements to achieve accuracy and honesty in making new discoveries. Scientist only win this contest to obtain ever lasting fame and respect from one's peers if their discoveries are right and first to be documented and critiqued. To be publically wrong or worse if you've mismanaged your measurements is the height of human humiliation, your scientific paper is always there in print for everyone to see by your colleague and the world as it has been to some for the church versus Galileo. will continue to haunt and torment you for rest of your life. All of your previous work will be put into doubt for the life of the paper they are printed on. Their are very few scientist willing to take the risk but if you have never been a scientist how are to know this without the help of our educational institutions teaching this very important point..

How about all of the following examples that show a more understandable way, more practical way, a more common sense way , that honesty and scientist, are very close companions. But it does this at the expense of showing that scientist do not live in any resemblance of an ivory tower. It shows the less than noble side of scientist in their work. Here is where shared and powerful emotions can be used to help understand why Scientist in their work Are unlikely to falsify or miss represent their data.

Ten emotional reasons why scientist are forced through natural emotions to treat their work more carefully and with more honestly than in most other professions.

1, In addition to the standard refereeing of scientific literature there is intense internal monitoring and cross checking between scientists over new and old measurements in their field of science that are used in making a new discovery.
2, There is very stiff competition among scientists to be test-ably right and to be first.
3, There is a compulsive need to search out mistakes in the work of others so that one can sure they are right or discredit their work if they are not to let you to be first with the correct results.
4 That discoveries are like the links in a chain. These discoveries are published with references connecting the new work with preceding work by others as well as their own and their work will be referenced by others on and on. Weak data is soon weeded out.
5, That old links are constantly being updated.
6, That there is an enormous genetic drive to be correct, especially in science where the measurements can and are being constantly tested.
7, That "to be right" is like a primeval need we all share and can understand.
Think about this: As you read the above statement your first inclination is to say, ”Oh yeah? Who says so?" (:-( That inclination is the scientist in you working away, it's in everyone.
8, Scientists make their living being right and first not first and wrong.
9,That falsifying any of their experimental data it's certain they will be found out and advertized to all They will quickly lose their sponsors, pride and reputation. Further any of the work they have published will be up for even closer inspection or most likely discarded as junk. Days weeks months years of sweating out your measurements in the lab gone if they are wrong.
10, Remember the church has not lived down even after almost 400 years their challenge to Galileo's discovery. They have used every ploy one of them is that Galileo was not polite enough in their disagreement..

The Galileo story and his use of measurements to study nature and the instruments he developed to make these measurements, telescopes, inclined plane in studying gravitational forces of falling bodies, his clock using a pendulum, thermometers, calculating machines the sector compass, micrometer, his way of funding his research, basic and applied, the writing and publishing his discoveries, etc. is a very simple powerful international story of science being right and some members of a very powerful institution management being wrong. It has been brought up again and again for nearly four hundred years it never seem to go away. a simple working example,-- of many--, with unnecessary damage to two institution that simply wanted to be right. Science was slowed but recovered with their work raising life expectancies to nearly three time Peoples morality speaks for itself. But given time science and trust in scientific data on human nature may help there also.

Yes it's time for all of us in science to work harder at solving the very serious trust problem discussed in the paper by Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg. reviewing how to increase trust in scientific data is of high priory maybe something similar to that proposed by the authors will help using examples of common sense as was described above. We believe the Galileo story is one that can be used more universally to help those of us, who love our science, to set the record straight about the issue of trust. Galileo's telescope is a recognizable symbol in this fight for gaining trust. at the same time the presentation telescope is a beautiful work of art and for those who recognize the emotional experience of scientists' preoccupation with being right, it is a powerful drama of one scientist's fight to speak the truth about what he observed. The Galileo story and his instruments can be and are marvelous teaching tools that we can treasure and use to promote a better understanding of how science works and that its aim is to reveal the truth about the natural world we live in. The Galileo story is equivalent to taking a case study in Harvard Business School.

To get a clearer picture of how science and Galileo worked we've also constructed an inclined plane, a cycloid, and a modified compass/sector calculator to demonstrate, the broader skill set that Galileo had and needed as an experimental scientist studying the laws of gravity and motion of bodies whether they be planets or cannon balls.

An observation ;
About some of the viewpoints expressed on our web sites dealing with "trust"; Two questions; 1st. What happens when we only use words to describe a problem issue like "trust"; 2nd. Why did scientists have to create their own language to do their work and share it with others scientist doing similar work..

1 st.; It's useful in study about what may be the real cause of this unintended confusion between listener and speaker; writer and reader caused by the difference in the definitions each of us have for key words that we are sharing in our conversations

Let us consider the simple word "trust".
This is an important and relevant word to science and its users.
Example about definitions In our copy of the American Heritage Dictionary There are about eight hundred words, 4000 characters used in describing the variety of uses of this very simple single syllable but important word ."Trust" so when we say we trust science and scientists work. This means something very different to different people because they don't share the same definitions. This difference becomes significant and one may lose the message of teaching and having trust in science because of this definition phenomena.

Their is hope though; the grand majority of people and scientist do share the same emotions, fear, happiness, sadness, embarrassment, danger, frustration, etc. can we use these emotions to to help describe why it is much safer for most to trust scientist and their discoveries more than we do now and certainly more than most other professions

So the point of this short essay is ; Most difference in the readers point of view and the authors is most likely one of definitions of terms. With this in mind for all the words we use lets us see if we can make our plea for science not too boring but useful.

For the most part one of the reasons for the internal success of science is because 1 st. it relies on measurements of time, length, and mass. 2 nd' it expressed these measurements through the language of mathematical notations rather than words to describe and use its discoveries. Scientist always have to depend on other scientist work. They only do that if this work is verifiable and repeatable So Its helpful to member that

Words alone are too ambiguous for accurately describing How nature and science function.

Faced with this dilemma in the lack of communications between the grand majority and scientist so there is not many alternatives other than resorting have to the concept of trusting in scientist and scientific work. But common sense and experience tells us to be very careful in trusting anyone or anything. If one understands how scientist gain trust in each others work this would help most of us enormously in extending and expanding our trust in scientific work as reported by the scientist not as reported by other channels.

We have set ourselves a goal to help build up a greater " trust " by the grand majority for science by using stories like the one about Galileo as a working example of how science works.
Few are fundamentally aware that Galileo was one of the seedlings of the so called modern measurement scientist who made use of time, length and mass successfully describing how nature worked. One could develop "trust " in his measurements because they were repeatable. reproducible. BUT all of this confidence breaks down for many because the word " trust" does not mean the same to everyone. The word " trust " is not very trustworthy like most words in any language.

Comments welcome at K1ugm@comcast.net , 781 245 2897