On the Gaia hypothesis and how students are graded

The difference between a scientific and a non-scientific hypothesis is an important one to learn in a science class. A scientific hypothesis is one that is open to the possibility of being proved false. Referring to Lovelock’s The Gaia Hypothesis, Table II, column (C) labeled Earth Without Life is what makes the Gaia hypothesis scientific. It does this because it predicts the data we should obtain were the hypothesis false.

To be falsifiable does not mean that a hypothesis is actually false. Neither does it mean that a non-scientific hypothesis is not worthy of being studied.

Going on further, we discussed a very simple model of a system:



The logic of the model is that the earth as Gaia performs certain processes, notably the transfer of matter, energy, and information in a controlled manner. The A’s are the inputs, the B’s the outputs, and C is the control. Lovelock did not present data from A or C, but rather the output, from B. He compared the atmospheric components of Earth, Mars, and Venus, and showed that the B of earth is markedly different from those of the other planets.

What made the difference? Life.

Taking off from this example, we showed that processes are more difficult to study than their results. It is not easy to tell who is brilliant, but it is much easier to see who is productive. I explained that I graded students not on the basis of their intelligence or their study techniques, but on their output. I pointed out that talent is useless without output, and that good papers produced by students are useless unless published.