Voyaging

Has Voyager left the solar system? There's some debate. Apparently, sensor data from the probe are showing that models and predictions about the nature of interstellar space (formulated with feet firmly planted on Terra, perforce) aren't panning out as expected. Consequently, two camps of whitecoats are squaring off and taping their knuckles for a little nerd melee over the matter:

More important than the suggestions made by some squabbling scientists, however, is what this illustrates about the process of science. Before Voyager got there, we'd done the work to make a physically plausible model of what the edge of the Solar System should look like. But when it actually arrived, we found out that our models were clearly wrong. But Voyager hasn't said a thing about what, specifically, was wrong about them.

There seem to be two different schools of thought developing. One, exemplified by this new paper, wants to take the data at face value and come up with a new model that reflects what Voyager is seeing right now. A second seems to think that the older models may still largely be right, but not detailed enough. They capture the rough outlines of the edge of the Solar System, but not at a high enough resolution to see the weird behavior right at the edge. If Voyager hadn't actually wandered into it, we wouldn't have known it was there. Given a bit more time, Voyager will wander out, and we'll see what we've always expected and can just tweak our existing models a bit to have everything match the data.

This goes right to the heart of a much bigger problem than the relative merits of competing interstellar magnetospheric models. This is about nothing less than the survival of objective science. If that sounds a bit grandiose, consider the case from the two competing perspectives and compare their goals.

The group who simply accepted the data and created a new hypothesis to test that data against are engaging in classical science: observe, hypothesize, test, repeat. The other group, however, represent -- to my mind, at least -- everything that is wrong with modern, politically-driven "science." Call it Big Science. They're the same sort of people as global warming believers and dark matter enthusiasts: they've got a model in which they are emotionally and financially invested, and they're going to stubbornly ride that model until it drops dead. If new observational evidence doesn't fit into that model, well by golly we'll get a bigger goddamned hammer and make it fit!

This conflict is nothing new, of course. It goes back to Kepler vs Brahe and even the ancient Greek philosophers. But there is only one truth: science tolerates no bias. Science "is." The fact that someone may have a personal or institutional dislike for the facts doesn't invalidate those facts. Fanatics such as Warmies and Darkies never seem to get that point -- and I don't suppose they ever will.