| From: Paul H ® | 25/09/2001
18:09:35 |
| Subject: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427094 |
All of science is technically, actually, in a very real sense, wrong. All of it. It has always been wrong, and it probably always will be wrong. It gets less wrong (we think!) as time goes on, and we learn more, but... technically, statistically, everything we think we know today is probably, almost certainly, wrong. Look at history. Most scientific ideas have been shown to be wrong, as they are improved or replaced by newer theories. Either a little wrong, or more often, a lot. It's inescapably logical that the same applies to all current theories. All that changes is the degree of wrongness. Let me illustrate what I mean by a rather perfect analogy. In many real-world applications, taking pi to be equal to "3" is good enough. Things will work out ok, if you use "3" in place of Pi. Is pi equal to 3? No. Does it "work"? Often. Is it correct? No. Is it "wrong"? Absolutely. By definition. Well, let's improve our model. Is pi equal to 3.1? No. That's wrong. 3.14? No. 3.141? No. That's incorrect. It's wrong. And yet... mostly... it's close enough, in the real world. 3.1415? No. Keep going... you'll never correctly know what pi is - you can't, ever. Science is just like that. Exactly so. Locked, by irrefutable logic, in a spiral towards the Truth that it can never reach. Locked in a permanent state of falseness. Science is wrong. It has always been wrong, and it always will be wrong. | |
| From: Paul H ® | 25/09/2001
18:11:52 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427098 |
Now... some egotistical scientists, eager to enhance their professional mystique at seemingly any cost to truth, will try to slither semantically out of this uncomfortable fact in a variety of ways. And we can't have that! Because we're true scientists, right? And our goal is the search for truth. Not prestige. Not defending turf that isn't really ours. (By any and all means). Right? One way they may try to do this, (the stupidest), is to suggest that because microwave ovens work, for example, Science must be Correct. Although the ignorance of the history of science this implies is almost touching in it's completeness, one only has to wave a history book in the direction of the stupid one to dispel this misconception. The history of science is full of examples of things "working" without science knowing quite why. Because calling pi "3" is often good enough. And very obviously, if our reason for understanding "why" can be improved, our previous understandings were faulty - or -"wrong". Bloody obviously. Another smoke-screen that can be employed is the "well, it may not be *completely* correct, but, er, it's close?". Sorry, no prizes for "nearly". Either something is right, or it's wrong. Science is wrong. A third, and slightly more sophisticated trick is to say that "there is no objective reality, and hence talk about 'Truth' is guff'". Now... if that's true... why look for the Truth if there isn't one? If Science isn't the search of objective Truth, what is it? So, the next time some scientific type is talking a little too smugly about the nature of Science, remind him (and it will be a "him") of this. Tell him, "It's a literal fact, that you don't know what you're taking about. Literally." Science is wrong. It has always been wrong, and it always will be wrong. Not that there's anything wrong with that. | |
| From: Procrastination inc ® | 25/09/2001
18:14:49 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427103 |
| Yes we don't have all the answers
and never will have. But the path to getting new and better answers is
well trodden and the outcome is improved quality of life. I don't mind if
science is wrong, at least its heading in the right
direction. | |
| From: Zardoz ® | 25/09/2001
18:18:16 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427107 |
| Some sat behind a desk and
conceived a notion that if an atom is split the energy realized would be
enormous. Someone did the math and made a workable theory. Someone conceived the engineering capacity. Someone built it and called it “Little Boy.” Then after all that work they dropped it without a parachute on a lot of people. That was wrong. The science was right however. (Unfortunately)  | |
| From: Wench of the Gods ® | 25/09/2001
18:20:56 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427113 |
| But Paul... Not everything in science is wrong. It can't possibly ALL be wrong. For example, Adenosine forms hydrogen bonds with Thymine and Uradine, Cytosine with Guanosine. We can actually see it happening, and science not only taught us that to start with, but then also gave us the tools to do so. Whilst I agree with the sentiment you express - science is the search for the greater truth (I mean, not that long ago, it was a *fact* that the Earth was flat, and the theory of spontaneous existence was the truth), I cannot support blatant generalisations. Somethings are real. We can see them and touch them and *know* they are real. They are the truth. We know how the 4 bases of DNA code for 20 amino acids and how those amino acids form to make proteins. We *know* these things. They are truth. That they are true doesn't make everything true. Science should be about finding the mistakes in our currently thinking and repairing them. But not everything is wrong. Just somethings. | |
| From: Approx. 3 | 25/09/2001
18:21:58 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427115 |
| I don't necessarily disagree with
your overall statement Paul but a little comment is required. If science is always wrong then "Sorry, no prizes for "nearly". Either" is definitely wrong too because there are hundreds of science prizes awarded every year. | |
| From: strom ® | 25/09/2001
18:24:15 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427116 |
| hhmmm, so this product of science
I've just read your statements on (my puter moniter) does'nt work, cool,
its gotta be the best non working bit of stuff I've ever owned,......there
is so much science at work in our everyday lives that we use,....and none
of it works? thems must be cool drugs I'm doin,... it all seems to work
the way it was designed to. | |
| From: OP (Avatar) | 25/09/2001
18:24:40 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427117 |
| We can
actually see it happening, and science not only taught us that to start
with, but then also gave us the tools to do so. Oh, how very convenient ... | |
| From: Zardoz ® | 25/09/2001
18:25:23 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427118 |
| Another minor addendum Science is the pursuit of FACTS. Not truth….Leave truth for the philosophers. | |
| From: VulcanW ® | 25/09/2001
18:25:55 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427119 |
| I fear I can't hang around long
for this one... So, let's see, f = ma is wrong. Gravity doesn't result in the mutual attraction of every massive body in the known universe; it's something else at play. Penicillin was a fluke, yes, but its improved and altered offspring are wrong/faulty/inadmissable evidence. Einstein's prediction of mass bending spacetime, to apparently change the path of light has never been observed; not around the sun, nor around massive galaxies; not ever. Forgive me, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Science, at its most elemental, is knowledge as a result of study. That knowledge may be incomplete, inconclusive, sometimes wrong or misleading, but it is knowledge, and our best scientific theories are necessarily based upon it, until better knowledge comes along. | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 25/09/2001
18:27:13 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427122 |
| All the points raised in the
first couple of posts to this thread have been adequately addressed in
this linked thread: A simple cosmos JR | |
| From: Jagman ® | 25/09/2001
18:38:03 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427137 |
| I thought that pi had been
solved? | |
| From: OP (Avatar) | 25/09/2001
18:39:56 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427141 |
| Solved in what sense? It will
never be possible to list all the digits, if that is what you
mean. | |
| From: VulcanW ® | 25/09/2001
18:40:18 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427142 |
| Only to around 3 million decimal
places. I believe 250 places is enough to describe the circumference of the known universe to an accuracy of the diameter of a hydrogen atom. Or thereabouts. | |
| From: Paul | 25/09/2001
18:40:55 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427143 |
| Pi has a non recurring, never
ending mantissa so can never be "solved". cheers, Paul | |
| From: Jagman ® | 25/09/2001
18:44:42 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427150 |
| Fair enough, I must have heard
some report on an ill informed national broadcaster. I thought it was
useless info any way if as you said you onl need a few hundred digits to
get incredible accuracy | |
| From: DocMercury ® | 25/09/2001
18:44:55 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427151 |
| Gee I hope you aren't a bridge
builder! If you used pi=3, there is a good chance the two ends wouldn't meet in the middle. Or worse, if you ever pilot a craft to Mars, you could miss it by millions of miles. Science is a pursuit of certainty in physical truths, but these is no claim within eternals that certainty is ever found, just approached for the known moments. It is a pretty safe bet that One unit plus another One unit will always equal Two units, that it will only be the unit which varies. So we standardise units so that a thing like a gram is an agreed gram in China and Australia. Methinks you are talking about certainty not science. Being a scientist is like being a cop. The job is NEVER finished. | |
| From: Shadow | 25/09/2001
18:58:04 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427181 |
| Keep going...
you'll never correctly know what pi is - you can't, ever. Science is just like that. Exactly so What u have said here, is wrong pi is 22/7 | |
| From: DocMercury ® | 25/09/2001
19:00:43 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427186 |
| pi is 22/7 Very close to 22/7 is true. NOT exactly. | |
| From: OP (Avatar) | 25/09/2001
19:00:49 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427187 |
| Ahem ... Shadow, how are ya? Pi does not equal 22/7. That's just a very rough approximation sometimes given to Grade Fivers. | |
| From: Robert ® | 25/09/2001
19:02:45 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427192 |
| Is pi equal to
3? No. Does it "work"? Often. Is it correct? No. Is it "wrong"? Absolutely. By definition. Well, let's improve our model. Is pi equal to 3.1? No. That's wrong. 3.14? No. 3.141? No. That's incorrect. It's wrong. And yet... mostly... it's close enough, in the real world. 3.1415? No. Poor analogy. First you have to point out that pi will be taken by definition to be constant, and define what it is in terms of a circle with Euclidean geometry etc. so everyone knows they're talking about the same thing. Then you start off with a rough idea of what pi is, good enough for most uses (as you say) pi = 3 +/- 0.5 say, an easy enough discovery for the scientifically minded then methods improve etc. pi= 3.10 +/- 0.05 even further pi = 3.1415 +/- 0.0001 All of these representations of pi are right. Improvement without wrongness. Are you not familiar with representations of error, or what? | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 25/09/2001
19:07:59 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427202 |
Someone wrote: One way they may try to do this, (the stupidest), is to suggest that because microwave ovens work, for example, Science must be Correct. The example to which this person is referring can be found in the thread A simple cosmos. The example has been misunderstood or referred to in incorrect context. The premise in that thread was that science was always wrong. The simple counterproof is to give one example of when science is right. One example supplied involved a microwave oven. So, in fact, the stupid scientist suggested that because the microwave oven works, this is one example of science being correct. Hence the premise that all science is wrong is false. Someone said: The history of science is full of examples of things "working" without science knowing quite why. You've confused yourself with science here, how this is possible I cannot fathom. Just because you do not know how a microwave oven works tells us nothing. Hands up all those who can explain to this person how a microwave works. A third, and slightly more sophisticated trick is to say that "there is no objective reality, and hence talk about 'Truth' is guff'". Now... if that's true... why look for the Truth if there isn't one? If Science isn't the search of objective Truth, what is it? Science tries to understand the universe. To do this, scientists try to describe the universe. Very few scientific theories address "objective truth". They address data. They make hypotheses. So, the next time some scientific type is talking a little too smugly about the nature of Science, remind him (and it will be a "him") of this. Tell him, "It's a literal fact, that you don't know what you're taking about. Literally." I suggest you look up the meaning of the term "non sequitur". Science is wrong. It has always been wrong, and it always will be wrong. Another statement which is trivially falsifiable. All that need be supplied is any example of any time that science has been right. I invite submissions from our packed and (no doubt) spellbound audience… | |
| From: Approx. 3 | 25/09/2001
19:12:13 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427208 |
| Isn't it absolutely, exactly
correct to say? "Pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter" Isn't that therefore an example of science being exactly right? | |
| From: Robert ® | 25/09/2001
19:12:56 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427210 |
| One way they may
try to do this, (the stupidest), is to suggest that because microwave
ovens work, for example, Science must be Correct This was in response to science is ALL wrong. Science says microwave ovens work using microwaves*, are you denying this is the case? And if you are right, that science is ALL wrong, as I pointed out before we can simply negate every single scientific theory to get a new science, anti-science that is ALL right. eg. If Science = { ...., Earth is not a flat 2-dimensional plane, Stars are not light bulbs, ... } is all wrong, then by negating each element we get a new set of theories Science# = { ...., Earth is a flat 2-dimensional plane, Stars are light bulbs, ... } which must be ALL correct. But we know "Stars are light bulbs" is false, so Paul must be wrong. *or something really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really like microwaves | |
| From: DocMercury ® | 25/09/2001
19:13:11 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427212 |
| The planet Earth, seen in 3
dimensions, is speroidal. If you let go of a clay brick in mid air a metre or two above ground, it falls and will not float. | |
| From: OP (Avatar) | 25/09/2001
19:13:30 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427213 |
| Unfortunately, that's only true
in a Euclidean universe (in which we do not live).
| |
| From: Robert ® | 25/09/2001
19:16:08 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427215 |
| OP, insert the word Euclidean
into the definition then - problem solved. | |
| From: OP (Avatar) | 25/09/2001
19:16:47 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427218 |
| (phew!) | |
| From: Robert ® | 25/09/2001
19:18:35 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427221 |
| If you let go of
a clay brick in mid air a metre or two above ground, it falls and will not
float. But that's what science says, so it must be wrong (accoding to Paul). | |
| From: Grant | 25/09/2001
19:21:37 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427230 |
| What an extremely linear and
simplisting view of the world. | |
| From: Robert ® | 25/09/2001
19:22:33 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427233 |
| I have scientifically come to the
conclusion that there exists either something, or nothing. How am I
wrong? I have scientifically reached the conclusion that Paul is correct. Am I wrong still? | |
| From: DocMercury ® | 25/09/2001
19:27:06 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427239 |
| Science is not
Religion. Science is objective, experiments must be repeatable. Religion is subjective, no-one else need agree but you. I think you're confusing the two. | |
| From: smelly nick | 25/09/2001
19:48:16 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427278 |
| It is what we do with science
that is wrong. But in a sense if this is true can science be wrong? The
answer is no. But is this wrong? "Few are they who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts" Einstein. | |
| From: Kelvin ® | 25/09/2001
20:08:37 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427318 |
| HI All If science is wrong, and will never be right (by the definition presented above) there is not a lot of incentive to be involved in science. Why be a constant loser. That begins the question then..is working out the composition and crystallography of minerals science? I think it is..and it is exact too. Quartz is always silicon dioxide and nothing else. Kelvin | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 25/09/2001
20:19:19 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427349 |
Let's turn his own argument around. Compare the following to the post at the top of this thread: "All of science is technically, actually, in a very real sense, right. All of it. It has always been right, and it probably always will be right. It gets more right (we think!) as time goes on, and we learn more, and... technically, statistically, everything we think we know today is probably, almost certainly, right. Look at history. Most scientific ideas have been shown to be right, as they improve on or replace older theories. Either a little more right, or more often, a lot. It's inescapably logical that the same applies to all current theories. All that changes is the degree of correctness. Let me illustrate what I mean by a rather perfect analogy. In some real-world applications, taking pi to be equal to "3" is good enough. Things will work out ok, if you use "3" in place of Pi. Is pi equal to 3? No. Does it "work"? Sometimes. Is it correct? Yes, provided your application doesn't require more accuracy. Is it "right"? Absolutely. Within certain well-defined limits. Well, let's improve our model. Is pi equal to 3.1? Yes, within limits, and it's certainly an improvement on 3. 3.14? Yes, even better. 3.142? Yes. That's right, to 3 decimal places. Often... it's close enough, in the real world. 3.1416? Yes, better again. Keep going... eventually you'll correctly know what pi is - in fact, you can define it to an infinite number of decimal places, precisely. Science is just like that. Exactly so. Locked, by irrefutable logic, in a spiral away from ignorance. Locked in a permanent state of increasing truth. Science is right. It has always been right, and as time goes on it just keeps getting more right." JR | |
| From: Alan™ ® | 25/09/2001
20:20:11 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427352 |
| Quartz is always
silicon dioxide and nothing else. mmm ... purple coloured quatz because of mangenese (amethyst) rose coloured quartz because of ....... | |
| From: The Phantom Menace ® | 25/09/2001
21:20:57 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427459 |
| All of science
is technically, actually, in a very real sense, wrong. All of it.
It has always been wrong, and it probably always will be wrong. It gets less wrong (we think!) as time goes on, and we learn more, but... technically, statistically, everything we think we know today is probably, almost certainly, wrong. Look at history. Most scientific ideas have been shown to be wrong, as they are improved or replaced by newer theories. Either a little wrong, or more often, a lot. It's inescapably logical that the same applies to all current theories. All that changes is the degree of wrongness. Heard of Zeno's paradox? It's not inescapable that science must always be wrong. It may well be that a full description of the fundamental laws of the universe can be captured precisely by mathematics. Nobody knows. Science may already have discovered real truths, maybe nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, we may not currently know if that is really true, but that wouldn't stop from being really true. Are these wrong (actually not conceivably)? The characteristics of animal species have changed over time. The surface of Earth is not flat, but actually has the topology of a sphere. Water molecules each have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. | |
| From: UNCo | 25/09/2001
22:32:02 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
427578 |
| you say science, yet you gave an
example of MATHS. maths is sythetic, apriori knowledge. science is analytic, aposterior knowledge. (if i got that the correct way around...) maths is based on logic, and can be proven corretc, though, Gordel showed us some truths cannot be proven. science, on the other hane, is empirical. it is based on obersvation, and theories. thats why they are called "theories" and not proofs. There is good science, and bad science, but no such thing as science vs. non-science. | |
| From: Martin B | 26/09/2001
11:26:27 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
428115 |
| Well, I also tend to think that
this thread raises nothing that had not been raised, and addressed in
another thread, but for the sake of completeness... Now... some egotistical scientists, eager to enhance their professional mystique at seemingly any cost to truth, will try to slither semantically out of this uncomfortable fact in a variety of ways. Actually this "uncomfortable truth" has been met head on, accepted, dealt with and openly discussed in another thread (as well as elsewhere) so I hardly see how that's slithering. And the addressing of personal motivations is an interesting question in the sociology of science. However from a methodological perspective it is rather important to be reflexive about this which I fear I have seen little evidence of. And our goal is the search for truth. Given the extent to which I went to point out that this is not the goal of science it would be nice to have that argument addressed rather than have your initial position reasserted. The history of science is full of examples of things "working" without science knowing quite why. Because calling pi "3" is often good enough. And very obviously, if our reason for understanding "why" can be improved, our previous understandings were faulty - or -"wrong". Bloody obviously. Either something is right, or it's wrong. Science is wrong. To paraphrase someone, such faith in the law of the excluded middle is rather touching in its simplicity. As discussed earlier, what is important is not whether something is wrong, but how wrong in a quantifiable sense it is (as measured by the uncertain, theory-dependent observations). A third, and slightly more sophisticated trick is to say that "there is no objective reality, and hence talk about 'Truth' is guff'". Now... if that's true... why look for the Truth if there isn't one? Note the begging of the question involved in this last sentence! If Science isn't the search of objective Truth, what is it? A very good question. One which will receive many answers (very few of which are as simplistic as the model that you offer). I will proffer: Science is an intersubjective construction of theoretical models which give predictions and/or explanations that are consistent with mutually agreed observations. | |
| From: Paul H ® | 27/09/2001
12:55:11 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
430061 |
I note there have been no comments made that I didn't anticipate and reply to in my original posts. It's not often I impress myself so thoroughly... ;-) It's not inescapable that science must always be wrong. I know that, what's why my original post said: "[science] has always been wrong, and it probably always will be wrong." Are these wrong (actually not conceivably)? ...Water molecules each have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. Yes, that's probably wrong. Saying that water molecules each have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen is (probably) as wrong as saying the universe had four elements, earth air fire and water. Is that ancient theory "correct"? Then, it's wrong? What's a hydrogen atom? Who knows? We used to think there was an indivisible proton and an electron. That was wrong. Now we think in terms leptons and quantum probability waves. That'll be wrong too. You'll see. Probably. | |
| From: Peter B | 27/09/2001
13:37:13 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
430186 |
| Paul said: "We used to think
there was an indivisible proton and an electron. That was
wrong." While I could accept that the statement "All of science is wrong" is probably right, my response to the statement is, "So what?" As it stands, science seems to provide a better format for understanding the world and the universe than any other format. Even if it's not correct, it's a lot closer to ~Absolute Truth~ [whatever that may be] than any other explanatory method. | |
| From: Carmel ® | 28/09/2001
10:30:40 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
431381 |
| Okay, Paul You spoke initially that ALL of science was wrong, which is (IMHO) a really rather strange thing to say. All it takes then is ONE instance where science is *right* to prove YOU wrong. Just as you have degrees of wrongness (which you focused on) there are degrees of rightness also. We learn something (like Medel and his bloody peas taught us about Mendelian genetics), and then later we AUGMENT what we know with more knowledge. Thus far, we have pretty much irrefutable evidence that Mendel was right when he talked about his snowpeas. Indeed, with cool camera's and imagery we can even watch it happen. I know what you are getting at... and in some instances you are absolutely right. But not everything, not all of time. | |
| From: mike h ® | 28/09/2001
10:32:28 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
431385 |
| Just wandered into this one - and
thought I'd donate my couple of cents. For mine, science is a process, which works (ie it is 'right'). It produces products (ideas, theories) which are wrong. But tending over time to be less and less wrong as we critically appraise and refine them. It spawns technologies which work (and are therefore 'right'). But, yes, we must accept that scientific theories are probably wrong - perhaps in fundamental ways, perhaps in peripheral ways. If they were all right, there'd be no point in doing any more science! In summary, my own feeling is that science is less wrong than it was in the past, and more wrong than it will be in the future... That's what makes it fun! Cheers, mike h | |
| From: mike h ® | 28/09/2001
10:50:35 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
431414 |
| I have no doubt that in times
past, I would have quite rationally 'known' that we lived in a geocentric
universe. And that the earth as flat. I mean, it was obvious wasn't
it? But the thing to remember is that just because our theories will change (and thus can be described as 'wrong') does not mean that the process of science is not worthwhile. Or that it is not in quite palpable ways taking us forward, in terms both of the development of new technologies, and of an understanding of the world and universe. Cheers, mike h | |
| From: The Phantom Menace ® | 28/09/2001
13:06:59 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
431659 |
| Paul H ®, It's not inescapable that science must always be wrong. I know that, what's why my original post said: "[science] has always been wrong, and it probably always will be wrong." And our original post said... ...you'll never correctly know what pi is - you can't, ever. Science is just like that. Exactly so. Locked, by irrefutable logic, in a spiral towards the Truth that it can never reach. Locked in a permanent state of falseness. Science is wrong. It has always been wrong, and it always will be wrong. because....???? Are these wrong (actually not conceivably)? ...Water molecules each have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. Yes, that's probably wrong. Saying that water molecules each have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen is (probably) as wrong as saying the universe had four elements, earth air fire and water. ... What's a hydrogen atom? Who knows? Probably? People work with individual atoms these days, they can be detected and manipulated individually, they're not theoretical physics any more. Whatever they are, no amount of analysis or discovery is going to change the fact that they are a real salient feature of the universe. We don't have to know everything about something, to know that it exists. | |
| From: Paul H ® | 28/09/2001
13:54:46 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
431790 |
Mr. Menace, You don't like me switching between "probably" and "certainly"? Personally I believe (ahem), that there's certainly a Godel's Theorem-like limit to humans ability to understand the universe. To humans ability to model the universe. For humans Science, therefore, to ever be True. Hence the pi analog. (Not, as I so carefully said, that there's anything wrong with that). But I could be wrong, hence "probably". You'd have to argue about Godel. Probably? People work with individual atoms these days, they can be detected and manipulated individually, they're not theoretical physics any more. "Earth air fire and water" were never theoretical either. That theory was wrong. There aren't really any "Leptons" (the smallest particle?) of course. That's just our next, wrong, approximation. Hell, there almost certainly aren't any "particles" at all. It just looks that way the moment. | |
| From: Peter B | 28/09/2001
15:59:08 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
432064 |
| Paul H ®,
your second post contains the following words: “So, the next time some scientific type is talking a little too smugly about the nature of Science, remind him (and it will be a "him") of this. Tell him, "It's a literal fact, that you don't know what you're taking about. Literally."” I’m not sure, but I assume that this was the point you were trying to make is that scientists should never claim absolute knowledge, because that’s something we’ll probably never achieve. But let’s consider the degree of accuracy of knowledge we can claim. You’ve already used the example of pi, so I’ll use that as an example. According to another post, whose accuracy I’ll accept (take on faith? ;-) ) we know pi to 3 million places, yet 250 places is sufficient to calculate the diameter of the universe with an accuracy less than the diameter of a hydrogen atom. So while we know that our knowledge of the value of pi is not perfect, the degree of error is known, and is known to be so small as to be way less than would be cause for any practical concern. So, in the scenario above, the scientist responds to your statement with the question, “Well, how accurate are we?” And the answer would be… “Ha! You’re only 99.9999999999% accurate. You know nothing.” Now that might sound like a fatuous argument on my part. But my point is that, IMHO, if you said that in a conversation in front of a third party, it’s you who’d look silly, not the scientist. Unless, of course, the scientist was a VERY silly person, in which case you could say just about anything to cut him (or her) down to size. To get back to your statement I quoted at the start, I’d like to ask you a question. You made the point that we are spiralling inwards towards a perfect knowledge we may never attain. And I noticed that virtually everyone agreed with that sentiment, which suggests that what you said wasn’t a particularly novel concept. So what do you expect to achieve by making such a statement? Is it to act as a general conscience for Science? Or simply to deflate the egos of those scientists who get a bit big for their lab coats? | |
| From: The Phantom Menace ® | 29/09/2001
13:09:00 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
433480 |
| a Godel's
Theorem-like limit to humans ability to understand the universe. To humans
ability to model the universe. For humans Science, therefore, to ever be
True. Hence the pi analog. Well that's possible, maybe even probable, but in that case I'd say that what Science can never reach is Completeness, rather than Truth. The pi analogy supports this, it seems to me. Not knowing the later digits of pi doesn't mean the earlier ones are ever going to change again. They're right. "Earth air fire and water" were never theoretical either. That theory was wrong. That supports what I saying too. The theory that everything was composed of these four elements was eventually shown be wrong. The theory that they were 'fundamental' was overthrown but of course that didn't mean that "Earth air fire and water" ceased to be as regarded as salient objects in the universe. Exactly the same with atoms. They're real. There aren't really any "Leptons" (the smallest particle?) of course. That's just our next, wrong, approximation. Hell, there almost certainly aren't any "particles" at all. It just looks that way the moment. Elements in models are always going to start of as concrete entities, black-boxes, billiard-balls, or point-particles. As you learn more you refine your picture, black-boxes get structure, billiard-balls get sticky, point-particles get fuzzy. Imagine if you will, the Mandelbrot set coming into focus, you keep seeing more and more detail, you try to make out the features emerging, you might make mistakes "Look! It's Mother Theresa!" but eventually they are corrected. Sure the picture is never really completed but claiming that you what you see is wrong is wrong, because it is right for the resolution at which you see it, the major features you discern will not go away, they are not wrong. You simply shouldn't put too much stock in what you think you can see emerging next. Or assume that things are going to smooth out the next level. | |
| From: Paul H ® | 01/10/2001
8:52:03 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
436143 |
Peter B, There's nothing in your most recent post that I didn't anticipate in my first posts. Nevertheless out of respect for your continuing (relatively) non-abusive tone, I'll repeat: Now that might sound like a fatuous argument on my part. But my point is that, IMHO, if you said that in a conversation in front of a third party, it's you who'd look silly, not the scientist. Not in my version of the conversation, which goes like this: (See that recent Tv doco about evolution? It was a rippa). ---------------------------- Me: Hey, how did fish end up walking on land? Cultist (confidently): Ah, well... back the Devonian Era, when the whole of Earth's land-surface was devoid of life, a certain type of fish got trapped in evaporating puddles, and natural selection picked those that were best at fin-walking to escape into larger puddles. Me: Are you sure? Is that correct? Cultist: That's the theory. Me: Oh look, I've just found earlier fossils that show that the fish you mentioned couldn't have been the first fin-walkers. So, that theory was wrong? Cultist (less confident): Er, well maybe that part was wrong, but the puddle part is still correct. Me: But the theory was wrong, really? Be honest... Cultist: Er... not totally... Me: Hey look, they've just found fossils that show that the Devonian landscape was covered in swampy vegetation! Not a barren desert at all! So that part was wrong too? Cultist: You're very annoying, go away. Me: Oh look, now the theory is that swamp-living fin-lobbed fish evolved their proto-legs entirely in water, and that "puddles" never came into it! So, was that theory quite wrong? Cultist: No! Merely "improved"! Now, sod off, or I'll call my mates and we'll do you! Me: Call your mates, I can handle them. All of them. Now, back the subject... how "merely improved"? Surely it was wrong? Cultist: Er, well... fish are still involved. Me: But technically, it was wrong? I mean, it wasn't correct? Cultist (sullen): The important thing is that the old theory... Me: ....which was wrong... Cultist: ...has been... made more correct. (Suddenly confident again) Now the theory is that swamp-living fin-lobbed fish evolved their proto-legs entirely in water. Me: Are you sure? Is that correct? Cultist: Jack, Bruce, Eric help! Bring your bovver boots! -------------------------------- ...which suggests that what you said wasn't a particularly novel concept. Is there anything in what I've written that suggests I think it is a novel concept? Why do you say this, then? Is it to act as a general conscience for Science? Or simply to deflate the egos of those scientists who get a bit big for their lab coats? Both of those look good to me (for a start). They deem him their worst enemy who tells them the truth. - Plato | |
| From: Paul H ® | 01/10/2001
8:59:33 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
436149 |
| Mr. Menace, There's nothing in your most recent post I didn't anticipate in my first couple of posts. Nevertheless... I'd say that what Science can never reach is Completeness, rather than Truth. The complete, Truth. If something isn't right, it's wrong. The pi analogy supports this, it seems to me. Not knowing the later digits of pi doesn't mean the earlier ones are ever going to change again. They're right. They are not pi. We will never be Correct about pi. (Probably). ...that didn't mean that "Earth air fire and water" ceased to be as regarded as salient objects in the universe. Exactly the same with atoms. They're real. The "element" "water" is real? That's not correct. It's wrong. So is saying "hydrogen" - that's wrong too. You simply shouldn't put too much stock in what you think you can see emerging next. Or assume that things are going to smooth out the next level. Can't argue with that. (It's a fractal universe BTW, have I mentioned that?) | |
| From: Martin B | 01/10/2001
17:35:21 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
436549 |
| My major point was that a
division of science as Right or Wrong is simply not significant, nor is
the revelation particularly new. Indeed many of the techniques of science
are strategies employed precisely because knowledge is always provisional
and incomplete. This point was not addressed in the first posts, nor has it been since. I thought the p analogy was good. A claim that p is exactly 3.14 is Wrong. A claim that p given to three figures in base ten is 3.14 is Right. A claim that the decimal expansion of p can never be listed completely in any base is Right. Of course this is all mathematics which has significantly different epistemological issues to science... | |
| From: Paul H ® | 01/10/2001
18:24:17 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
436588 |
Martin B., My major point was that a division of science as Right or Wrong is simply not significant, I knew your point. You're saying that truth is not significant. Indeed many of the techniques of science are strategies employed precisely because knowledge is always provisional an incomplete. This point was not addressed in the first posts, nor has it been since. Original post: " All that changes is the degree of wrongness." I think it was. A claim that the decimal expansion of p can never be listed completely in any base is Right. And therefore any primate effort to encapsulate the whole non-primate universe is doomed to perpetual wrongness. Godel's theorem, etc. Of course this is all mathematics which has significantly different epistemological issues to science... Ooh. What does that mean? (really!). | |
| From: Martin B | 01/10/2001
18:42:26 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
436603 |
| I knew your
point. You're saying that truth is not significant. No, that's not it. It is not significant for science to assess truth-value in absolute terms, only in relative ones. Assuming that truth exists (which I believe you think and I am happy to assume for the sake of the argument), then truth is certainly significant to scientists becasue they want to get close to it. However scientists won't particularly care about the truth that they will never reach Truth. Original post: " All that changes is the degree of wrongness." But you are being inconsistent here, are you not? If there are degrees of wrongness then there must also be degrees of rightness. Yet in your second post you specifically deny this: Either something is right, or it's wrong. I think it was. Inconsistently (as above). More importantly you haven't satisfactorily addressed my criticism that your critique is not significant. (From the above it would appear that you have not quite understood my point. Ooh. What does that mean? (really!). Mathematics is about probing the boundaries of the logical structures within our primate brains. Science is about describing the world as precisely as possible. In order to do this we have no choice but to use primate concepts, but we have no reason ultimately to expect the world to conform to those concepts (like Right and Wrong). Mathematics can be done without experiment. Science requires experiment and all of the messy problems that brings with it. | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 03/10/2001
10:48:02 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
438301 |
| There are many ways to take that,
howabout we explore some of them? Suppose it means "no theory is complete", not too many people would argue with that i imagine, but how many scientists really deep down believe it applies to their own work? If they do, why is so much time spent pointing out the errors in the opinions of others, rather than incorporating the truths in the work of others into their own world view? | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 03/10/2001
11:07:56 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
438324 |
| 4DSpecs: ...why is so much time spent pointing out the errors in the opinions of others, rather than incorporating the truths in the work of others into their own world view? It is important to carefully check for errors so that those errors don't propagate through the science community. A small initial mistake can potentially turn into a large mistake later on. Having said that, most of the work which reaches the peer-reviewed publication stage is probably correct, in that the results obtained by the methods used are true. Published results are taken on board and incorporated into the world view of other scientists in the field. At the boundaries of science, there are always unknowns, and with unknowns go many theories competing to become the "accepted" explanation. Life at the edge is always fuzzy, and scientists working there need to bear in mind many possibilities at once. Bit by bit these are whittled down, as "bad" theories are falsified one by one. Science gradually zeros in on the "true" explanation over time. Returning to the thread topic for a minute, it may be technically correct to say that science is always wrong, but only in the narrow sense that every useful result in science is a theory which cannot be absolutely proved. On any but the most narrow-minded view, science is not always wrong. In fact, as has been pointed out before, every good scientific theory knows exactly how wrong it is. That's why results are always quoted with error bounds. Nothing is 1 metre long. Things are always (1 +/- 0.0003) metres long. It is misleading to say that a result quoted this way is wrong, since the correct value undoubtedly lies in the range given. JR | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 03/10/2001
12:42:31 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
438450 |
Hi 4D specs You asked a good question which I believe hasn't been addressed by the original poster in this thread. As I understood the thrust of this thread's original post, it is the contention that all of science is wrong because all that we know today will one day be shown to be incorrect. Which, presumably, will one day be shown to be incorrect as well, which casts doubt on the first revision and raises the question of whether we can actually know anything at all. Unfortunately none of this has been explored in any detail. There is, I believe, an even broader question which this thread might address in terms of what we can know through science. At the heart of science (and most human knowledge) there are some fundamental axioms which we must* take for granted: * That we can actually know things. * That the universe can actually be described rationally (for example the entire universe will not tomorrow be spontaneously filled with pink marshmallow) * That repeatable results point to descriptions which can be applied more broadly than those particular results * That the most fundamental descriptions are applicable to the wider universe everywhere (the cosmological principle) All of the knowledge gained through science is based on these principles. You can't prove that any of them must be so, we must either accept them or literally give science away. Why do we accept them? Because (a) the descriptions science has come up with, based on those principles, can be used to make predictions which come true; (b) technology based on science works (most technology is actually based in science, not - as some would have it - in luck); and (c) because so far the universe has failed to spontaneously fill with pink marshmallow. But the question that could be asked is - what if science is, in fact, all wrong? What if the principles on which it is based are not all correct? Well, let's see what would happen if any of the above principles were wrong: * That we can actually know things. If we can't actually know things, but are fooling ourselves, we have two choices: (i) we face up to not being able to know anything and give the whole game away (technology, society, history, economics, everything); or (ii) we go on fooling ourselves that we can know things because it seems to work! :o) * That the universe can actually be described rationally * That repeatable results point to descriptions which can be applied more broadly than those particular results If the universe were tomorrow to suddenly become squishier, sweeter, and more difficult to move through then we're in trouble. Your everyday life relies on the ability to be able to predict things with some measure of certainty, without that certainty you can no longer trust physics to help you walk, drive a car, ride a pushbike, warm up or cool down, you can't trust your biochemistry, you can't trust medicine, you can't trust anything anymore. The universe suddenly becomes a much scarier place (and I'm not just talking about the sudden increase in pink). * That the most fundamental descriptions are applicable to the wider universe everywhere (the cosmological principle) This one is not quite so fundamentally life threatening as those above, the question is "what if all the science we know only works in the immediate vicinity?". But what is our immediate vicinity? In an way I think that depends on how much of the universe you need to know about to feel safe. After all the pink marshmallow thing could be happening just outside the range of our science, while we sit here cosily in our ordered, rational microcosm. Then you need to ask yourself how those boundary conditions come about - is this little corner of the universe rational merely because we see it that way? Or has it been ordered for us (are we in some cosmic lab experiment ourselves)? And if so, who runs the lab? Deep questions, and questions necessarily outside science, but still worth pondering. | |
| From: Martin B | 03/10/2001
13:01:33 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
438479 |
| Nice post, Chris. I slightly disagree with: (most technology is actually based in science) I think that is accurate today, but is reasonably recent historically. Most technology more than about 150 years old originated from the domain of "practical people", not scientists :-) Some aspects of Eastern religious thought such as Buddhism (for what I know about it) would suggest a different way of answering your question 1... I think that question 2 is one of the more interesting ones. Assuming the world to be consistent does seem to work. But what are the limits to which our descriptions and categories apply to the Universe? Why is mathematics such a good language to describe things? On a macroscopic level we can understand the applicability of our systems of thought in an evolutionary sense (as I think Ed has described previously) - our brains have evolved systems that are good predictors of the world around us. However we have no reason to expect this to continue at either atomic or cosmological levels, and indeed at these scales there have been formidable challenges to our notions of causality (amongst other things). Nonetheless, mathematics still seems to have applicability. Will this always be so? | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 03/10/2001
14:20:08 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
438571 |
I slightly disagree with: (most technology is actually based in science) I think that is accurate today, but is reasonably recent historically. Most technology more than about 150 years old originated from the domain of "practical people", not scientists :-) I agree, but I also think that the definition of "scientist" and "science" has changed a lot too. For instance in classical times philosophy and science were indistinguishable. Up until the industrial revolution the bulk of science was heavily linked to religion. I guess the question is in the definition of science - where are the boundaries of which knowledge constitutes science and which does not? Some aspects of Eastern religious thought such as Buddhism (for what I know about it) would suggest a different way of answering your question 1... Do you mean my first postulate that we can actually know things ? If so, I'd like to hear about any different answers! :o) Assuming the world to be consistent does seem to work. But what are the limits to which our descriptions and categories apply to the Universe? Well there are two answers - one the utilitarian one - is that the limit to which our descriptions and categories apply to the universe is the limit to which they are successful in accurately describing or categorising it. We can then use the cosmological principle to extend what we are able to see here or there, or test in labs on earth, to the rest of the universe. But this principle is just another such description, and is itself subject to the limit above - as long as it remains accurate and useful. Why is mathematics such a good language to describe things? I honestly don't know. I am undecided in the debate as to whether mathematics is part of the universe or a wholly human invention (in other words whether the discovery and use of mathematics is inevitable in any attempt to describe the universe at large). It is certainly a phenomenally successful tool - no more in evidence than in recent times at the forefront of physics, where mathematics can actually drive new theory which can then lead to experimental confirmation. Sometimes I wonder if mathematics has limited our development of understanding of the universe in the same way that I think our development of language has stunted some of our thinking ability. It is hard for me to imagine understanding without maths - harder than it is to imagine understanding without (say) language. However we have no reason to expect this to continue at either atomic or cosmological levels, and indeed at these scales there have been formidable challenges to our notions of causality (amongst other things). Nonetheless, mathematics still seems to have applicability. Well, we do have some reason to subscribe to the cosmological principle - that so far it is right. However you're right about the universe operating differently at different scales. Our everyday intuition falters at the concepts of very fast or very massive objects (ie relativity) and we must rely on maths to guide us safely though. At the quantum scale our intuition is worse than useless, it gets in the way. In a way, instead of us pushing our understanding out into the universe, and trying to get it to conform to our maths, now it is the maths which is leading us out of the safety of what we readily understand into the "wilds" of the universe at very large and very small scales. Will this always be so? I hope so. :o) | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 04/10/2001
13:34:27 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
440213 |
From "Light Speed" thread: I mean that GR will turn out to be wrong in precisely the same way that the Newtonian paradigm did. It's inevitable. No, that won't happen. It is certain that GR will turn out to be incomplete, but it is also certain that the way in which it is incomplete is nothing like the way Newtonian gravity is incomplete. No - stick with me, I'm not splitting hairs, this is important. The important point is that Newtonian gravity is a subset of GR - it works for slow speeds and for low mass densities. It is still correct, and useful, in those areas. GR will turn out to be incomplete as well because it is not a quantum theory - eventually it will become a subset of an even more general theory which can include gravity on tiny scales as well. Now I want you to consider this analogy: Suppose I live on an island where the only sport played is rugby. I study general fitness, and I notice that people who play rugby are more fit than others. I theorise that playing rugby makes you fit. Some time later on we discover neighbouring islands where they play netball and cricket. Some other researchers discover that there are now people who do not play rugby who are even fitter than rugby players. My theory is in trouble! Then along comes someone called Joe (for example) who sees the bigger picture. He theorises that people who play any sport - rugby, cricket, netball - are fitter than those who don't play sport, and so playing sport makes you fit. Observations show this theory to be correct, and mine is superseded. Now... is my theory less correct? It is certainly less complete, and on my island where we still only play rugby it is still a useful theory which gets correct accurate results. It is only in the wider scale (with other islands) that the broader, more complete theory must be applied. What do you think? (copied to the "all science is wrong" thread) | |
| From: Paul H ® | 04/10/2001
13:38:26 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
440221 |
"I mean that GR will turn out to be wrong in precisely the same way that the Newtonian paradigm did. It's inevitable. " >> No, that won't happen. It's inevitable. It's an attempt to describe the observed universe that will turn out to be either a little, or a lot, wrong. Just like Newton's ideas were. Our limits of "observed reality" will expand, revealing GR's failings. Just what happened to Newton. | |
| From: Peter B | 04/10/2001
14:39:12 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
440311 |
| Paul H ® Unfortunately, I haven’t seen the program about evolution, though I’m looking forward to the series on SBS (next month, I think). One was a geology lecturer who told us that the official view was that plant life spread across the Earth in the first geological period in which plants are noted in the fossil record. He then added that his own view was that because plants don’t fossilise easily, it’s possible plants could’ve colonised land earlier. He wasn’t trying to challenge the status quo, but instead showing us an alternative which was realistic, but which just didn’t happen to have any evidence supporting it. Another is competing theories about the demise of dinosaurs (Preacher77’s statements aside). My old dinosaur book (printed in the 60s or 70s) suggested a range of possible causes. Then some geologists found the K/T iridium, and the meteor theory gained popularity. Others have mentioned massive vulcanism (basalt beds in the Deccan, I think), while others have pointed out that dinosaur variety was a lot less in the years prior to their extinction, which may suggest them being out-competed by other life forms. The point I’m making is that this is a classic case where no one appears to hold the upper hand on What Really Happened, and lots of people are out searching for evidence. I used to have a book, printed about 100 years ago, about the sea. It had a chapter devoted to Wegener’s theory of continental drift, a good 50 years before the theory was generally accepted. It explained theory, and its pros and cons, so while it was still unsupported by much evidence, it was at least respected enough to get into a book. In another thread (do you remember which one?) you described Lord Kelvin as an arch silver-back, which also made me chuckle at the imagery. I pulled out “Coming of Age in the Milky Way” by Tim Ferris, in which he described Lord Kelvin’s calculations for the age of the Sun. Ferris said: “He remarked, in one of the most pregnant parenthetical phrases in the history of physics, that ‘(I do not say there may not be laws which we have not discovered.)’” Likewise, Darwin said, “We are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are.” Here, then, are two of the arch silver-backs of 19th century science, agreeing with your sentiments. But in a greater sense, isn’t it necessary to have at least a few silver-backs in any field of endeavour? These are the people who establish the state of the art, and pass that knowledge on to all around them. They are, in a sense, the giants on whose shoulders others can stand, in order to see further. They are the people who, by their prodigious work, massively expand our knowledge, and so earn their status by their achievements. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, what’s wrong with continuing to listen to their pronouncements in their field of expertise? After all, while these people might have a use-by date, no alarm goes off to inform everyone that this date has arrived. Without the silver-backs, you have no standard against which to measure your own idea, and that seems to lead to the slippery slope of ultimate relativism - my idea is just as good as yours cos I said so. Your comments would be appreciated. | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 04/10/2001
14:56:15 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
440333 |
It's an attempt to describe the observed universe that will turn out to be either a little, or a lot, wrong. Just like Newton's ideas were. Our limits of "observed reality" will expand, revealing GR's failings. Just what happened to Newton. You're behind the times there, Paul. GR theorists already know where GR's shortcomings are. GR predicts (in a way) where it will fall short, which is an excellent quality in a successful theory - we know exactly where it can and can not be applied. The shortcomings are in that its a classical theory (as I mentioned earlier). However at classical (non-quantum) scales GR is still an excellent, useful, accurate theory. It accurately describes the universe, it allows us to make accurate predictions about the way gravity will behave in the largest scales, just as Newton's gravity still allows us to make accurate predictions about gravity at everyday scales. If Newtons gravity and GR are simply "wrong" (in the black and white sense you support) how do you explain the accurate predictions either theory makes? Are they lucky guesses? Or does your definition of a "wrong" theory still allow that theory to make successful predicitons? (In which case of what value is it to label the theory wrong?) | |
| From: Peter B | 04/10/2001
16:55:50 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
440412 |
| This is starting to look like an
epistemological debate on the meaning of the word
"wrong". | |
| From: Robert ® | 04/10/2001
19:46:40 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
440528 |
| I agree, because I had a look at
Godel's theorems today (which Paul thinks indicates science is wrong), and
neither of them said anything about wrongness, just
incompleteness. The first theorem goes along the lines of, if science is consistent, then science is incomplete (ie. there are things which science can neither prove nor disprove). The second says if science is consistent, then science prove itself consitent. Neither of these are particularly surprising, the first is what you get in those long threads about invisible dragons and God and stuff, the latter is the circular reasoning fallacy exposed. | |
| From: Dogmatix ® | 04/10/2001
20:04:49 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
440550 |
| Martin B, something that you have said has sent the cogs a whirring! If the base of the number system is defined to be e or pi, would a raft of rationals become (within such a schema) 'rational'? Do any branches of mathematics use this as the base premise, I wonder, and is it useful? | |
| From: Robert ® | 04/10/2001
20:19:18 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
440572 |
| Umm... how do you have a
non-integer as a base? At a guess, you would have to use the set of reals as your set of symbols... it would take for ever to count to 10decimal. You would also need an infinite number of symbols to represent each digit. | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
9:39:35 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441184 |
This is starting to look like an epistemological debate on the meaning of the word "wrong". Yep, also on the meaning of the word "all". And, here and there, the meaning of "science". It's to be expected. For example, suppose I said "All cars are black", and then stuck to my guns despite the preponderance of available evidence. You might start to suspect I had a rather different understanding of the word "black", or at least "all" or "cars", to the rest of the world. No point discussing whether all cars actually are black when you can immediately give examples of cars which are clearly not black, is there? So you're stuck with either (a) a definitional debate to make the contention something which can actually be argued, or (b) dismissing me as a loony. ;o) | |
| From: Paul H ® | 05/10/2001
12:06:00 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441424 |
For example, suppose I said "All cars are black", and then stuck to my guns despite the preponderance of available evidence. Suppose instead that someone actually understood the point being made, and realised that: In many real-world applications, taking pi to be equal to "3" is good enough. Things will work out ok, if you use "3" in place of Pi. Is pi equal to 3? No. Does it "work"? Often. Is it correct? No. Is it "wrong"? Absolutely. By definition. Well, let's improve our model. Is pi equal to 3.1? No. That's wrong. 3.14? No. 3.141? No. That's incorrect. It's wrong. And yet... mostly... it's close enough, in the real world. 3.1415? No. Keep going... you'll never correctly know what pi is - you can't, ever. Science is just like that. Exactly so. Locked, by irrefutable logic, in a spiral towards the Truth that it can never reach. Locked in a permanent state of falseness. | |
| From: Martin B | 05/10/2001
12:12:21 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441434 |
| Robert: Godel's theorem is a theorem of mathematics. As I have argued above, I don't think you can simply equate mathematics and science. They are significantly different activities. In particular, Godels theorem applies to formal axiomatic systems. No-one really does science on the basis of deductive reasoning from a finite set of axioms. Godel's theorem, in a nutshell is that any formal system based on finite axioms is incomplete (contains truths that cannot be proved from within the system) or inconsistent (contains a contradiction, in which case it contains every proposition). | |
| From: mike h ® | 05/10/2001
12:15:41 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441439 |
| Hi TB, I guess what I'm wondering here is... so what? I mean, sure, if we accept that absolute truth in unattainable, then by logical extension all of science (and history, and theology etc) is wrong. But so what? Science still produces (increasingly) accurate predictions, and working technologies. So do you simply want to be able to dance around chanting 'science is wrong'? If so - go for it. Have fun. I certainly won't disagree with you. But I will argue that it tends to be less wrong than a lot of other disciplines. Cheers, mike h | |
| From: DazedAndConfused | 05/10/2001
12:16:33 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441443 |
| if the definition of right is
infinite precision, then obvously all of science (and everything else) is
wrong | |
| From: Martin Smith (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
12:44:07 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441481 |
Just a few thoughts. All theories are approximations. Some of these approximations are better than others. That does not something wrong - it makes it an approximation. Pi is known, and can be expressed exactly. It just can be written down as a number. The expression that gives Pi is known. It is not wrong, it is a fact, it is not a theory. Many other facts are known. Many theories are very very close approximations. There is a difference bewteen knowning what you have is a good approximation and being wrong. MS | |
| From: Paul H ® | 05/10/2001
12:45:38 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441485 |
>> There is a difference between knowning what >> you have is a good approximation and being wrong. What's the difference? | |
| From: Martin B | 05/10/2001
12:54:39 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441495 |
| Paul, I think that a big problem
with your analogy is that no-one actually asks the question "Is pi
equal to 3?" (etc). For a very good reason. If people want to know the precise value of pi they will say something like the series found on this page. One thing that I find slightly amusing is that there isn't really anyone who has fundamentally disagreed with Paul's orginal statement. All that has been under contention is its significance and its interpretation. My position from the beginning is that I agree with the statement, I just don't find it very interesting or novel. It's been known for a long time. I think the interesting things about science are abput how we respond to the problem, not the problem itself. | |
| From: Martin Smith (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
13:18:17 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441529 |
The main point is not all science is worng. In fact the very first point of this thread involved Pi. We know what Pi is EXACTLY. The common numbering system in use does not allow it to be written down with a finite amount of numbers. However we do know exactly what it is and can express it with a finite amount of symbols (just not with a finite amount of decimal numbers). So all science is NOT wrong. Your assertion is incorrect. Some things are known facts. Now on to the more broad argument >> There is a difference between knowning what you have is a good approximation and being wrong. What's the difference? The difference is knowing your limits of accuracy. If you know something is an approximation it is neither exactly right or wrong. It is an approximation. If you are wrong you will either not know the fact, the approximation, or the limit of accuracy. I'll give you an example. It is a KNOWN FACT (not an approximation) that in euclidean geometry that the angles and lengths of a right angle triangle have certain relationships. This is science. It is not wrong. It is a fact. Another example that your first assertion (all science is wrong) is in fact wrong. Now we apply euclidean geometry to our world. Which is in fact just an approximation to euclidean geometry. However we actually know how close that approximation is (very very close around out part of the universe). Now we further apply euclidean geometry to navigation on a sphere. A further approximation. Once again we know the limits of that approximation (and can quantify them). Now if I was to fly you in a aeroplane using visual navigation I would apply euclidean geometry. However I would actually use approximations. If I found myself 5 miles to the left of track over a known feature I wouldn't get out my calculator and work out the angle I need to turn through to get back on track. I would use an approximation that I can do in my head (the 1 in 60 rule). Once again I know the limits of accuracy doing this - and if you wanted I could get out my calculator and quantify those limits. So we start with a known FACT. Something in science that is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Not even remotely wrong. Even after applying several quatifiable approximations I can still use this FACT to navigate my aeroplane across a sphere in a non flat universe. Because I know the limits of the approximation. If I was wrong I wouldn't find Mildura from Adelaide. What is more the only correct part of your assertion - that theories are very rarely exactly correct and are continually modified - is a well known part of science. It is how science operates. MS | |
| From: mike h ® | 05/10/2001
13:41:29 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441558 |
| Er... Paul H ®, Did you have an answer to my question of a few posts back. If all of science is wrong, well so what? What does acceptance of this philosophical dictum mean in any broader sense? Or are you simply making a philosophical point? Which is quite fair enough, of course - but if so, then this thread kind of resembles a war in which both sides wind up saying, 'oh - we actually agreed over that all the time!'. Then of course you can have a war over who started the first one... I'm just curious as to whether you made the 'science is wrong' call for its own sake or were making a broader point. Cheers, mike h | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 05/10/2001
16:19:14 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441905 |
I think the value of pi was supposed to be an analogy, rather than an example. There are many ways of getting the value of pi wrong, for example: about 2 dollars 31.42 3 2 3.142 3.144 +-0.001 3.142 +-0.0001 I rather doubt whether all of science falls into one of the types of error listed above, but probably a large part of it does. Considering the ways in which science might be wrong seems to me to be a worthwhile activity. That's all - | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
16:31:36 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441913 |
| "There are a thousand ways to get
a problem wrong - not all of them bad - and many ways to get a problem
right - not all of them good." - David Griffiths. | |
| From: Robert ® | 05/10/2001
16:32:39 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441915 |
| Robert: Godel's theorem is a theorem of mathematics. As I have argued above, I don't think you can simply equate mathematics and science. They are significantly different activities. In particular, Godels theorem applies to formal axiomatic systems. No-one really does science on the basis of deductive reasoning from a finite set of axioms. Godel's theorem, in a nutshell is that any formal system based on finite axioms is incomplete (contains truths that cannot be proved from within the system) or inconsistent (contains a contradiction, in which case it contains every proposition). Yes, I agree completely (apart from a few pedantic points which are irrelevant). Hence my confusion at Paul mentioning it previously as a reason as to why science is all wrong. | |
| From: Cowardly Pseudonym | 05/10/2001
16:57:55 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441951 |
| That is interesting, and could
include valid examples of science being wrong*. But to say "All science is
wrong", and then act as though you really believe it? Come on... A History of the Speed of lght:  The vertical lines illustrate the experimenters' estimate of uncertainty though it is not always clear what these are meant to suggest. Click on the chart for more detail. * Whether the wrong values are cases of science being wrong at some time or not depends partially on whether the estimates were based on well-accepted theory or not. Note that the graph also shows many specific instances of science being right. | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
16:59:02 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441953 |
| It follows
that there is a systematic tendancy to underestimate the error in
constants determined by experiment. Error bars these days are quite often one standard deviation errors. In other words, the chance that the result quoted is within in the quoted range is about 68%. Double the range and the chance is 95%. Triple it and the chance is 99%. (Assuming the error is normally distributed.) Nevertheless, errors quoted are only measurement errors and so on. Systematic errors are much more difficult to pin down, which is why later results obtained by different methods can often fall outside the quoted error range of the earlier result. It is important to realise that any perceived systematic error requires explanation. If your new result falls outside the quoted range of a previous result you must explain why the previous result is not valid and why you think your result is more reliable. JR | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
17:00:42 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441956 |
| Oh... Regarding the speed of light experiments: where the results fell outside previous error ranges it was shown that systematic errors were involved. These days, with known sources of systematic error eliminated, speed of light measurements always fall within experimental error. JR | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 05/10/2001
17:01:43 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441957 |
| About Godel's Theorum The best statement of Godel's Theorum I know is: In any consistent logical system it is possible to make a true statement that translates as "this statement cannot be proved" Thus any logical system must contain true statements that cannot be proved. I believe that Godel himself was unsure just how important this theorum was. Does this relate to science? I think it does when the science involves the examinination of the nature of the entity that is doing the examining. At least by analogy. | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
17:03:06 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441960 |
| Also be aware that "error bars"
are not indicitive of error, but of estimates of
uncertainty. | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
17:24:36 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441984 |
| That's a very important point,
Terry - one which cannot be encompassed the binary view of right and wrong
espoused by Paul H. JR | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 05/10/2001
17:32:29 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
441998 |
| Perhaps you'd
like to suggest how he could be right, 4D Specs. What
then? I thought that's what we were doing? How's this? At school I was taught that matter consisted of protons, neutrons, and electrons, each being like tiny billiard balls. Even back then this was an extremely out-dated view, but that's what we were taught, even in years 11/12. This picture has its uses, but it is fundamentally wrong (isn't it?). Suppose our current view of the fundamental particles is equally wrong. That's possible isn't it? Wouldn't it be true (in a sense) to then say that "all of science is wrong"? | |
| From: DocMercury ® | 05/10/2001
17:42:42 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442010 |
| I think it is fairer (and more
accurate) to say that Science occupies an infinite learning
curve. | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 05/10/2001
17:44:48 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442015 |
| Also be aware
that "error bars" are not indicitive of error, but of estimates of
uncertainty. So for any measured value we can set upper and lower bounds, and say with confidence that the true value lies between these limits. But these bounds are estimated, so there is some chance that the true value lies outside the estimated limits. It follows that it is almost certain that some values are wrong, and their is a finite probability that all values are wrong. It is therefore possible that all science is wrong, in a real sense. | |
| From: Grantą (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
17:46:30 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442018 |
It is therefore possible that all science is wrong, in a real sense. So how does anything work? | |
| From: Alan™ ® | 05/10/2001
17:49:26 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442025 |
| From memory standard deviation
comes into play with the estimation of error
bars. | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 05/10/2001
17:49:58 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442027 |
| It is therefore
possible that all science is wrong, in a real sense. So how does anything work? Fortunately things are designed by engineers, who know the theories they use are only rough approximations, and make due allowance. Of course sometimes the allowance is not enough. | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
17:50:38 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442029 |
| Except that the speed of light is
a defined quantity. Zero uncertainty. Product of uncertainty therefore
zero. And remember, this is statistics. When you say you are confident, you have to say exactly how confident you are (63%, 95%, 99%, 99.995%,...) | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
17:51:13 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442030 |
| At school
I was taught that matter consisted of protons, neutrons, and electrons,
each being like tiny billiard balls. ... This picture has its uses, but it
is fundamentally wrong (isn't it?). No. You're making the same mistake Paul H is making, by dividing things into "right" and "wrong" with no in-between. The fact is, there are degrees of wrongness and rightness. Things can be "mostly right", "not quite right" or "wrong except for a few features", for example. Treating particles such as atoms, protons and electrons as billiard balls is fine for many purposes. The idea is not "right", but neither is it "wrong". Like everything else in science, it is an approximation which has a well-defined range of usefulness. However you look at it, it is not "fundamentally wrong", unless you live in a simplistic binary world. Scientists always tend to use the simplest tool that does the job, in exactly the same way a plumber or a cook does. The fact that a tool does not do everything does not make it useless. In fact, if it does too much it can be an encumbrance. Who wants a tool which drives in nails, screws screws, cuts wood, fastens joints and paints the fence all in one? Such a tool would be unusable. (Yet, in some situations in can be shown that such a tool is necessary. If you have no choice but to use it, you use it. But only where it is the only tool which will do the job.) Let me give you an example. In my work involving laser coolng theory, it is common to adopt what is known as the "semi-classical" approach to the interaction of atoms and light. In that approach, we treat the internal parts of the atoms quantum mechanically, at the same time treating the light as classical waves and the centre of mass atomic motion as essentially billiard ball-like. Why not treat everything quantum mechanically? After all, a semi-classical approach, being partly non-quantum mecahnical, must be wrong, mustn't it? The answer is that the semi-classical approach gives VERY accurate answers at the level we need them. It turns practically insoluble problems into solvable ones. We couldn't get anywhere with a pure-quantum approach, even though it would be more "right". Is the semi-classical approach "wrong" then? No, because it does everything we need it to do for the problems we throw at it. It gives correct answers to amazing accuracy. Sure, quantum electrodynamics would be even more accurate, but it would give answers which would be indistinguishable experimentally from the semi-classical answers, at a much greater cost of computation time and effort. The same kind of thing can be said about using Newton's laws instead of GR. The same point can be made about any number of different theories in science. Are the simple theories "wrong"? Only if you're silly enough not to appreciate that they are accurate within well-defined limits, as are ALL good scientific theories. JR | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 05/10/2001
17:53:24 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442037 |
| Except that the
speed of light is a defined quantity. Zero uncertainty. Product of
uncertainty therefore zero. It is now, so the speed of light has left the realms of science, and entered the realms of mathematics. We can still argue about the true length of a metre though. | |
| From: Grantą (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
17:53:55 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442039 |
Fortunately things are designed by engineers, who know the theories they use are only rough approximations, and make due allowance. But if all science was wrong as claimed, then how can you make allowances that work? | |
| From: Grantą (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
17:55:45 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442043 |
It is now, so the speed of light has left the realms of science, and entered the realms of mathematics. ? How do you differentiate between the two. I thought maths was the language of science? | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
17:56:40 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442047 |
| My version of JR's example. I'm
currently coauthoring a paper in which we do a few treatments, some take
tunnelling into account, some not. The tunnelling included results take an
order of magnitude more computational effort, and the results are
indistinguishable given the uncertainty. The conclusion: tunnelling
corrections are a serious waste of time. (I should point out that a chem eng student designed and executed this work! I would never have bothered....) | |
| From: sam (popping) | 05/10/2001
17:57:30 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442051 |
| How do you
differentiate between the two. I thought maths was the language of
science? I see science as inductive reasoning and maths as deductive. Big difference in my book, dunno how everyone else sees it. | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 05/10/2001
18:07:00 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442075 |
| James and Grant I'm an engineer(as you may have gathered). I know all about making approximations that are good enough. I always treat steel as a continuum I nearly always treat concrete as a material with zero tensile strength. I often treat soil as a linear elastic material. None of these assumptions are "true" in any normal meaning of the word. They are rough approximations that work well enough for the intended purpose. But this has nothing to do with science. From a scientific point of view we want to know the true stress-strain behaviour of soil (which is not even approximately linear elastic), and we want to know why it behaves the way it does. It seems to me that an excessive belief in the "truth" of science (as currently understood) has been and continues to be a major impediment to progress. | |
| From: DocMercury ® | 05/10/2001
18:10:49 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442088 |
| But.. a failure of an engineer to
recognise that wet hills will slip (when tree cover is removed) results in
Thredbo. A guess as close as possible to perfection is required... | |
| From: Grantą (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
18:11:40 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442090 |
It seems to me that an excessive belief in the "truth" of science (as currently understood) has been and continues to be a major impediment to progress. ? AFAIK- Science is about facts. Truth is for the philosophers. | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 05/10/2001
18:14:33 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442095 |
| A guess as close
as possible to perfection is required... Not at all, a guess better than the margin of error is required. That's the best we can do, sometimes it's not good enough. | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 05/10/2001
18:16:38 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442102 |
| AFAIK- Science
is about facts. Truth is for the philosophers. A curious statement. Are you saying that hypothesis has no place in science? | |
| From: DocMercury ® | 05/10/2001
18:17:17 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442104 |
| The margin of error defines the
word 'possible' in terms of perfection... | |
| From: Zardoz ® | 05/10/2001
18:19:19 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442109 |
| Are you saying
that hypothesis has no place in science? Hypothesis based on facts yes  | |
| From: Grantą (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
18:21:59 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442117 |
Are you saying that hypothesis has no place in science? Are you saying an hypothesis is the truth? I though it was a prediction, based on assumptions, possibly based on data & hopefully then tested to see if it stands up to scrutiny. Whether it does or doesn't is that improtant, what is important is that the result can be explained & understood- and repeated. | |
| From: DocMercury ® | 05/10/2001
18:27:01 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442124 |
| Doesn't the procedure of
scientific scrutiny and repeatable experimental evidence go something like
this; hypothesis to theory to rule | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 05/10/2001
18:36:11 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442141 |
| Doesn't the
procedure of scientific scrutiny and repeatable experimental evidence go
something like this; hypothesis to theory to rule Doesn't that suggest that scientists have a more than passing interest in truth? | |
| From: OP (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
18:36:56 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442144 |
| What does truth, as distinct from
facts, mean? I would consider the truth to be the set of
facts. | |
| From: Grantą (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
18:38:41 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442147 |
Doesn't that suggest that scientists have a more than passing interest in truth? Nope, just the facts. The truth is subjective, the facts aren't (or shouldn't be). | |
| From: Grantą (Avatar) | 05/10/2001
18:40:04 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442155 |
What does truth, as distinct from facts, mean? I would consider the truth to be the set of facts. I have a feeling of deja vue here... The truth is a subjective interpretation of the facts. | |
| From: Zardoz ® | 05/10/2001
18:40:50 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442157 |
| What does truth,
as distinct from facts, mean? I would consider the truth to be the set of
facts.? My old Physics teacher used to drum the issue. Science is about the pursuit of Facts. A truth is something you believe to be true regardless of evidence. A fact must have evidence as an essential ingredient. There may be a mix of the two in the mind but they are different IMHO | |
| From: DocMercury ® | 05/10/2001
18:41:27 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442160 |
| Doesn't that suggest that
scientists have a more than passing interest in truth? I would say Yes, but I think the contention between perception of truth vs fact arises from 'truth' long time possession by philosophers in pursuit of eternal verities. (and a consequent abhorence in the minds of secular scientists) Monty Python has the answer... | |
| From: knowbuggerall | 05/10/2001
18:44:28 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442167 |
| What is a
theory? | |
| From: DocMercury ® | 05/10/2001
18:45:44 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442172 |
| Science is an art
form. Few things are as sweetly compelling as a firm proof of a theory. (anyone got one of those?) | |
| From: B.C. ® | 05/10/2001
18:46:40 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442173 |
| A theory is that which matches
experiment and observation...or describes the universe we live in
adequetley. | |
| From: DocMercury ® | 05/10/2001
18:48:02 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442176 |
| What is a theory? Looking for other definitions, but to me, a theory is an hypothesis with evidence (experimental, mathematical or observational) to support it. | |
| From: Zardoz ® | 05/10/2001
18:57:18 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442190 |
| So what is a theory? A proper
definition of a theory in science is this: A working explanation of
natural phenomena based on available evidence. The three key words in this
definition are working, explanation, and evidence. These are the keys to
the strength of a scientific theory. Only A Theory | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 06/10/2001
0:07:26 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
442586 |
| It seems
to me that an excessive belief in the "truth" of science (as currently
understood) has been and continues to be a major impediment to
progress. You'll have to explain that in more detail for me. No scientist believes in the absolute truth of science. Almost no theory is the last word on anything. If anything, it tends to be the non-scientists who put too much faith in science (witness the faith that says science will solve the greenhouse problem of the world without us having to cut fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions). It seems obvious to me that overconfidence that any particular theory is the last word would be an impediment to further progress. But I don't think any scientist at the leading edge of her field would be silly enough to believe that any theory at the edge is the last word. It is helpful also to bear in mind that sometimes even well-established theories require modification from time to time, in light of new facts. Again, be careful that you don't get the false impression from this that I am saying science is wrong. If you think that's what I'm saying, re-read my posts above. JR | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 06/10/2001
19:14:26 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
443290 |
| It seems to me
that an excessive belief in the "truth" of science (as currently
understood) has been and continues to be a major impediment to
progress. You'll have to explain that in more detail for me. I've been thinking about this. I decided I was right. Surprise surprise. First let's introduce the Curate's egg into the debate. The curate said his egg was only bad in parts. The point of this story (which is almost always missed)is that an egg bad in parts is no good at all, it spoils the whole egg. The curate was just too polite to say so (or maybe too devious). It's the same with a building, if the foundations are bad it ruins the whole building, no matter what the quality of the rest of it. There are parts of science like that. If these foundations are wrong the whole lot is wrong, no matter if 99% of scientific facts are right. Now consider the theory that the Earth is the centre of the Universe. The reason that this theory held sway for so long is not bigotry by the church. It was an accepted fact that was obviously true. The only alternative was that the stars were impossibly far away. We now know that the stars are impossibly far away, and the Earth is not the centre of the Universe, but the failure to question this held up scientific progress for hundreds of years. I have no doubt that there are analogous ideas in the current scientific orthodoxy. Ideas that are so obviously true that no-one questions them, but that are in fact false. So the foundations are wrong, and the whole of science is wrong. This is indisputably true. It's what I think anyway. Well, its worth thinking about. | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 07/10/2001
3:01:17 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444074 |
| 4D Specs, I think your analogy is a bad one. Science is more like a whole meal than a single egg. If the egg is bad, throw it out and eat the bacon and tomato. Get a new egg. Out with the bad; retain the good. There are parts of science like that. If these foundations are wrong the whole lot is wrong, no matter if 99% of scientific facts are right. This seems to be self-contradictory. If 99% is right, then only 1% can be wrong. It does not follow that if 1% is wrong the whole lot is wrong. I have no doubt that there are analogous ideas in the current scientific orthodoxy. Ideas that are so obviously true that no-one questions them, but that are in fact false. If an idea is not true, sooner or later it will show itself to be false one way of another, unless it is truly unimportant. All science is provisional, always. If a theory works it need not be questioned. If it fails to make accurate predictions it must be modified or replaced. The beauty of science is that it is self-correcting. So the foundations are wrong, and the whole of science is wrong. I'm not sure what foundations you're thinking of. However, the more basic the idea the more it will have been tested, usually, because more things depend on it. Bad foundations will be quickly discarded. JR | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 07/10/2001
11:24:04 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444299 |
| James Having just skimmed the Coal thread I can understand you getting a little jumpy about people saying that all of science is wrong. But I won't let that stop me. Just let me say that I regard "creation science" as at best ignorant fantasy, and for the most part out right lies. I think your analogy is a bad one. Science is more like a whole meal than a single egg. If the egg is bad, throw it out and eat the bacon and tomato. Get a new egg. Out with the bad; retain the good. You are very tolerant. If I had a meal served with a bad egg I'd want the whole damn meal replacing. What about the building foundations? Is that a bad analogy too? If an idea is not true, sooner or later it will show itself to be false one way of another, unless it is truly unimportant. All science is provisional, always. If a theory works it need not be questioned. If it fails to make accurate predictions it must be modified or replaced. The beauty of science is that it is self-correcting. Sooner or later, yes. The foundations of modern science are very much in the sooner phase. I'm not sure what foundations you're thinking of. However, the more basic the idea the more it will have been tested, usually, because more things depend on it. Bad foundations will be quickly discarded. The foundations I'm talking about are quantum mechanics, general relativity, creation of the universe theories, and evolution theory. I'm saying that current versions of these theories are analogous to the theory of epicycles, that enabled accurate prediction of planetary movement, but was in fact wrong. Some of our current theories may have incorrect assumptions built in (analogous to the Earth as the centre of the Universe), others may be just incomplete (I'm thinking evolution here); but I will be surprised if there are not major revolutions in all of those theories within the next 100 years or so. Does that make all of science wrong? Whatever the answer, if the statement provokes debate about the issues, then the statement was worth making. | |
| From: Zardoz ® | 07/10/2001
11:28:42 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444302 |
| If an idea is
not true, sooner or later it will show itself to be false one way of
another, unless it is truly unimportant. All science is provisional,
always. If a theory works it need not be questioned. If it fails to make
accurate predictions it must be modified or replaced. The beauty of
science is that it is self-correcting. Sooner or later, yes. The foundations of modern science are very much in the sooner phase. Just a comment here, when Isaac Newton proposed his Theory of Gravity he was flying directly into the face of a notion of gravitation that had been accepted since it was proposed by Aristotle. We may not get there overnight. And we still may not be there yet. | |
| From: Grantą (Avatar) | 07/10/2001
11:29:10 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444303 |
The foundations I'm talking about are quantum mechanics, general relativity, creation of the universe theories, and evolution theory. I thought the foundation of science was the scientific method? | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 07/10/2001
11:45:40 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444315 |
| 4D Specs, I think we might have different ideas of what the foundations of science are. The theories you mention (quantum mechanics, general relativity, creation of the universe theories and evolution theory) are all complex theories supported by a wealth of observational and experimental evidence. That's not to say that better theories might not replace them some time in the future, but it is important to realise that any subsequent theory of quantum mechanics, for example, will have to be at least equivalent to current quantum theory in some appropriate limit. This is because current quantum theory gives the right answers for all the things it has been tested on. Again, that doesn't mean that new observational evidence won't come to light which requires a modification of quantum theory. However, the modified theory will have to be able to reproduce all the correct results of current theory. I'm saying that current versions of these theories are analogous to the theory of epicycles, that enabled accurate prediction of planetary movement, but was in fact wrong. The epicycle theory was right to a certain degree - if it wasn't it could not have been used to predict planetary motion. There turned out to be a much simpler theory which gave equally accurate results, so this replaced epicycle theory. But, even if the new theory of elliptical orbits (Kepler/Newton) had not come along at the time it did, observations would have soon forced a re-think of epicycles. As new planets, moons, and comets were discovered, the epicycle theory would have shown itself to be a poor predictor of the motion of bodies in the solar system. In fact, it was tweaked purely to describe the motions of the planets. It was an accurate theory, but one with a very narrow scope. The theories which replaced it gave the same (or more accurate) predictions, but were also applicable to new situations not covered by epicycles. I will be surprised if there are not major revolutions in all of those theories within the next 100 years or so. At the rate at which science is now progressing, you might be right there, but who knows? But that doesn't mean the current theories are wrong. They are just not the last word. JR | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 07/10/2001
11:47:07 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444322 |
| I thought the
foundation of science was the scientific method? Nope - that's the bed rock I'm talking about the bottom bits of a structure, that hold the rest of it up. What else do you expect from a civil engineer? :-) | |
| From: Robert ® | 07/10/2001
11:50:04 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444331 |
| The foundations
I'm talking about are quantum mechanics, general relativity, creation of
the universe theories, and evolution theory. How? How can they be wrong (in the areas they have been tested)? QM: How can QM be wrong and laser pointers, polaroid sunglasses, quantum computers, Young's double slit experiment, etc all work? GR: How can GR be wrong and gravitational lensing, the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, etc. be observed? No gravity waves? That's possible, but they aren't observed fact yet. Creation of Universe: Most of this comes under the above two headings Evolution: LaMarkian (sp?) makes a comeback? I think not. Speciation a fabrication? Some other mechanism responsible for us sharing 99.6% of 'active' genes with chimps? Natural selection displaced? All this stuff works where we've tested it, only inductive errors remain. | |
| From: grombek | 07/10/2001
11:59:18 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444354 |
| Ack! too much to read the whole thing but, I know someone mentioned the Zeno paradox: to get from point A to point B you first have to travel halfway, then from there to point B you need to get to halfway again and so on... Or, to count from 10 to 20 you need to count to 15 first, then 17.5, then 18.75 (I think, stupid maths)... anywho if you skip the decimals when counting your'e simply being lazy. In Terry Pratchett's Discworld Novel "Pyramids" the Xeno example: If you have a tortoise walking away from you, and you shoot an arrow at it, the arrow will move halfway towards the toroise, then 3/4 of the way and so on and thus never hit the tortoise... and what do you know? when tested over and over again he kept missing the tortoise (he'd never used a bow before but that's not important) ~me | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 07/10/2001
12:13:45 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444389 |
| Robert QM could be wrong in the same way the theory of epicycles was wrong. There could be a different theory which is simpler and more elegant. One that enables the different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics to be resolved. To the extent that the theory of evolution by natural selection is a tautology, I'll accept that it is true. I'm just saying that it is far from the last word on the mechanics of evolution. Why are you so sure that evolution does not have a Lamarkian component? All this stuff works? So did epi-cycles. So does linear-elastic soil. Does this mean they are not wrong? I am saying that scientists (on the whole) are too ready to accept the current state of knowledge as the last word. People tell me I'm wrong, scientists are open to new ideas. I think this debate shows I'm right. | |
| From: Robert (triple j) | 07/10/2001
12:23:22 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444407 |
| oh, I missed this
bit: Why are you so sure that evolution does not have a Lamarkian component? All this stuff works? So did epi-cycles. So does linear-elastic soil. Does this mean they are not wrong? In answer to the first, it's because I think it is very unlikely a mechanism for information flowing from phenotype to genotype could have slipped by given the complexity required for such a mechanism (but yeah, I could be wrong). In answer to the second, it means they are not wrong within certain bounds. In answer to the new ideas, Scientists should be open to new ideas*, it's just as time goes on, the new ideas have more and more to answer to: ie. more observations have to be supported/refuted by any new theory (unless it is in a completely new area, of course). *but not so open as to be gullible :) | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 07/10/2001
12:30:10 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444413 |
| Its time for me to go, so I'll
finish up with a quote from Richard Dawkins (in a spirit of
concilliation!) Yes you should have an open mind, but not so much your brain falls out. | |
| From: B.C. ® | 07/10/2001
12:53:54 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
444435 |
| . People
tell me I'm wrong, scientists are open to new ideas. I think this debate
shows I'm right. In this day and age...yes they are! as long as those new ideas and theories match observation and experiment better than current ones do. | |
| From: Martin Smith (Avatar) | 08/10/2001
11:43:16 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
445437 |
Most physicists I know believe that there must be a new theory just around the corner - especially to do with quantum physics, but also with evolution and GR. Even though QM works there are still some holes and to many people it is not very elegant. I don't think there are many scientists out there who truly believe we have all the answers as it is. That doesn't mean science is wrong. On the right track but not there yet (and may never be). There is not much doubt that we are on the right track because the foundations (the scientific method) is indeed solid. On the other hand many non science beliefs (e.g. creationism) really believe they do have all the answers right now and there is no need for change. Chances are they are wrong. MS | |
| From: Paul H ® | 09/10/2001
15:32:41 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447367 |
I see there's been nothing new raised that I didn't anticipate and reply to in my initials posts. Nevertheless: Robert, As I said to The Phantom Menace - "you'd have to argue about Godels Theorem." It's a standing argument between people (like yourself) who think it isn't relevant outside of formal mathematical systems, and others (like me) who think it is. (I've already had that particular argument, I don't want to have it again). If you hold the latter view, Godels theorem is evidence that Science can never understand the universe without accessing a higher system. And there isn't one. Therefore Science will always be wrong. Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... - Rucker, (Infinity and the Mind) Mike H, If all of science is wrong, well so what? From my original post: "Science is wrong. It has always been wrong, and it always will be wrong. Not that there's anything wrong with that. So, the next time some scientific type is talking a little too smugly about the nature of Science, remind him (and it will be a "him") of this." (Hope this helps). | |
| From: Robert ® | 09/10/2001
15:41:02 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447383 |
| If you hold the
latter view, I'm undecided, let's say I do for the moment: Godels theorem is evidence that Science can never understand the universe without accessing a higher system. And there isn't one. Therefore Science will always be wrong. Could you expand? Godel's incompleteness number 1 says If FA is w-consistent then there is a sentence phi such that not(FA proves phi) and not(FA proves not(phi)). (Such a sentence phi is said to be undecidable in FA; a collection of formulae Sigma is complete if no sentence is undecidable in Sigma) Rosser later strengthened this such that if FA is consistent then .... Godel number two is If FA is consistent, then not(FA proves con). (Thus: FA cannot prove itself consistent) That's what my notes say. How do you get from there to the lime text above is what I am after. Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... - Rucker, (Infinity and the Mind) Does Rucker have such an explanation? | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 09/10/2001
15:46:22 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447392 |
| Robert, That's just Rucker's interpretation. Infinity and the Mind is a playful book in which Rucker explores possible implications of Godel's theorem and other stuff, although he mentions Godel only in passing. Godel's applicability to sciences other than maths is debateable, and other people hold views different from Rucker's. It's not so much that he is wrong as that Godel is not directly applicable. There are valid reasons other than Godel's theorem as to why we may never understand the universe completely. JR | |
| From: Robert ® | 09/10/2001
15:50:23 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447398 |
| Uhuh.... but incompleteness isn't
wrongness, even if Godel is applicable - inconsistency is. Wrongness is
(in a boolean world) "I say A, but not(A) is true".
| |
| From: mike h ® | 09/10/2001
15:52:09 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447400 |
| Hi Paul H Yep - helps a bit. I had actually seen that comment in Paul H ®'s earlier post. I still disagree with (the collective) you over the 'loadedness' of your phrasing. Science is wrong, but no wronger (and probably a lot less wrong) than most other fields of study. And while it might be a "literal fact" that scientists don't know what they are talking about when they 'smugly' talk about the nature of science, my experience is that within their particular field, they generally have a pretty good idea of what they are talking about. Cheers, mike h | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 09/10/2001
15:52:40 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447402 |
| Ah! Sorry, Robert. I missed that.
Good point. Incomplete does not mean wrong. That's the point I've
consistently tried to make in this thread. Well spotted. | |
| From: Paul H ® | 09/10/2001
15:54:28 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447403 |
Robert - there's a thread I started, called "Godels Theorem" (somewhere). It has a bit of discussion and a few links about That Argument. Else, do a search on Godels Theorem - That Arguement (which I don't want to have again right now) will be easy to find. Martin Smith, We know what Pi is EXACTLY. Not really. Pi is "the circumference of a circle divided by it's diameter"? Ok, then: Let the entire universe be represented by "x". Therefore, I know what the universe is EXACTLY, it's "x". Now on to the more broad argument: If you know something is an approximation it is neither exactly right or wrong. It is an approximation. From my original post: Another smoke-screen that can be employed is the "well, it may not be *completely* correct, but, er, it's close?". Sorry, no prizes for "nearly". Either something is right, or it's wrong. Science is wrong. It is a KNOWN FACT (not an approximation) that in euclidean geometry that the angles and lengths of a right angle triangle have certain relationships... This is science. No it's not. It's math. Math is merely one of the languages Science uses. What theory/predictions/ falsifiable test is inherent in the example you gave? Now we apply euclidean geometry to our world. Which is in fact just an approximation to euclidean geometry. However we actually know how close that approximation is (very very close around out part of the universe). Ie. - when using that language in Science - we find we're always wrong. Either a little bit, or a lot. If I was wrong I wouldn't find Mildura from Adelaide. Not true. From my initial post: The history of science is full of examples of [scientific] things "working"... Because calling pi "3" is often good enough. And very obviously, if our reason for understanding "why" can be improved, our previous understandings were faulty - or -"wrong". Bloody obviously. ...that theories are very rarely exactly correct and are continually modified - is a well known part of science. That's what I said. Unfortunately it does not mean science is wrong... That's exactly what it proves. | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 09/10/2001
15:58:08 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447406 |
| Either
something is right, or it's wrong. I say binary thinking is wrong then. | |
| From: Robert ® | 09/10/2001
16:08:26 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447423 |
| Robert - there's
a thread I started, called "Godels Theorem" (somewhere). It has a bit of
discussion and a few links about That Argument. Else, do a search on
Godels Theorem - That Arguement (which I don't want to have again right
now) will be easy to find Err does anyone know how I search the forums? And I tried looking for That Argument, but it came up with nothing. Anyhow what does that matter? Godel's incompleteness theorems talk about the incompleteness of consistent systems. Now, Incompleteness is not(FS proves phi) and not(FS proves not(phi)) for some phi and wrongness is (FS proves not(phi)) and { } |= phi (ie. phi is really true) for some phi clearly if you 'and' incompleteness and wrongness you get a contradiction. There can be no argument (whether you use capitalisation or not). | |
| From: Paul H ® | 09/10/2001
16:13:17 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447428 |
Christopher, You're behind the times there... And you're way behind on the logic here. Or does your definition of a "wrong" theory still allow that theory to make successful predicitons? From my original post: The history of science is full of examples of things "working" without science knowing quite why. Because calling pi "3" is often good enough. And very obviously, if our reason for understanding "why" can be improved, our previous understandings were faulty - or -"wrong". Bloody obviously. (In which case of what value is it to label the theory wrong?) Because it's true? | |
| From: Robert ® | 09/10/2001
16:14:34 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447431 |
| Robert - so
capitalisation doesn't help? ;-) How about high-volume repition? That's
seems to be popular. Clarification would be nice | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 09/10/2001
16:42:24 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
447475 |
For 4D specs Interesting argument, 4D. When you ask about scientists and truth, this question isn't about truth, it's about correctness. I personally think that truth is necessarily subjective, not absolute, and so I won't argue that science is about truth or science tells the truth or anything similar*. In your building analogy, I set out the "building foundations" of science in an earlier post in this thread (replying directly to you): Post id 438450 There is, I believe, an even broader question which this thread might address in terms of what we can know through science. At the heart of science (and most human knowledge) there are some fundamental axioms which we must* take for granted: * That we can actually know things. * That the universe can actually be described rationally (for example the entire universe will not tomorrow be spontaneously filled with pink marshmallow) * That repeatable results point to descriptions which can be applied more broadly than those particular results * That the most fundamental descriptions are applicable to the wider universe everywhere (the cosmological principle) That post also discusses how any of these might possibly be wrong and possible consequences for all knowledge - it makes for interesting thought (I'd also be interested in your comments on that post). | |
| From: Martin Smith (Avatar) | 10/10/2001
1:56:12 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
448331 |
Paul we don't have to use euclidean geometry in our world - we can actually use the geometry that would give the exact answer. However it is much more difficult for a small bit of "exactness" . We know geometery very well. Euclidean assumes a flat plane - we know the geometry for non flat planes - but because our part of the Universe is very close to flat we just use Euclid (we still know the other geometry - just no use in using it). We know the expression for Pi. It will give us Pi to whatever accuracy you desire - all it takes is time. We do not know how big the Universe is. Your analogy is not a good one. We do know what Pi is EXACTLY. We really have only a loose idea of the size of the universe. Pi is not a variable x - it is a constant that we know to whatever precission is required (including infinte precission - if you have infinte time). Both geometry of flat and non flat planes are known. I think you must have a poor understanding of maths to see the difference between knowing something exactly, but using something similar that is easier. The same goes for Pi. That was my whole point about approximations. You may know the exact constant/formula/algorithm but using an easier one will quite often do. This is not wrong - it is smart. MS | |
| From: Dogmatix ® | 10/10/2001
2:06:22 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
448334 |
| Martin, are you familiar with the development of the infinite series that determine Pi, e, et cetera. I am interested in the reasoning and history behind the proofs that led to the conclusion that they were indeed adressing Pi (et cetera) and not a pretender to the throne. I'm sure when you tell me I will be saying "D'oh", however..... | |
| From: Geraint ® | 10/10/2001
2:16:02 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
448338 |
| Hi Dogmatix - read this
. They show you some simple pi expansions in
there. | |
| From: 4D Specs ® | 10/10/2001
9:43:36 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
448486 |
| Chris There is, I believe, an even broader question which this thread might address in terms of what we can know through science. At the heart of science (and most human knowledge) there are some fundamental axioms which we must* take for granted: * That we can actually know things. * That the universe can actually be described rationally (for example the entire universe will not tomorrow be spontaneously filled with pink marshmallow) * That repeatable results point to descriptions which can be applied more broadly than those particular results * That the most fundamental descriptions are applicable to the wider universe everywhere (the cosmological principle) Continuing an analogy which I used earlier, I would describe your axioms (along with the scientific method) as the bedrock. If we don't accept these things there is no point in the discussion (you've got me worried about the marshmallow, but I try not to think about it). The foundations are the next level, the bottom bits of the construction that hold the rest up. Most everyone says that science is open to change in these foundations, but they (the foundations)are not wrong, just incomplete. I don't want to get into debating semantics, but I would like to make a couple of points that are evident from the discussion in this thread: - It is easy to say that you are open to new ideas. To actualy change ideas you have held all your life (and which form the foundations of all your scientific thinking) is incredibly difficult. Past a certain age it almost never happens. This is why most scientists do their best work early on; not because of a decline in their mental powers, but because they just have too much baggage. - We will all (myself included) be surprised at the extent to which the foundations of science change in the near future. When these changes occur, many will argue that the old ideas were not wrong, in the same way that Newton was not wrong. There is value in that point of view. But the opposite is also true. | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 10/10/2001
11:48:06 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
448671 |
Thanks for the reply 4D. :o) Continuing an analogy which I used earlier, I would describe your axioms (along with the scientific method) as the bedrock... The foundations are the next level, the bottom bits of the construction that hold the rest up. Most everyone says that science is open to change in these foundations, but they (the foundations)are not wrong, just incomplete. Here we have to be careful that we're not restricting the definition of "all of science" to "physics". Apart from those axioms I mentioned, I don't think there is anything else that unperpins all of science - an incredibly broad range. Perhaps, if you want these to be the bedrock in our analogy, then science is a city rather than a building. It is possible to shake the foundations of buildings here and there - it is even possible to bring whole buildings down. It is unlikely that you will level the entire city unless you destroy the bedrock above. In my experience science happens at all different levels in the city. Most people choose a building and work away at it, either doing the window dressing, adding floors on top, remodelling floors here and there, etc. Some people actually work at the foundations. Some people work on a variety of buildings in the same block, and some even work on foundations common to several buildings (eg those working at quantum gravity). A great many people visit the city. They look at the architecture. Some admire from a ways off, some wander the streets looking at the buildings. Some actually enter the buildings to look around and some inspect the buildings in minute detail. And some build observation decks miles out of town and look at the city through binoculars and point out its deficits from that distance. The people who are visiting the city are sometimes just learning about it, sometimes looking for flaws. Sometimes both. Unless the whole city itself is crumbling, the best way to see the problems is to visit it, to have a good look around. The very best way is to examine it minutely - then many flaws will open up - after all the city was built by humans, not Gods! :o) Unfortunately the best way to make a name for yourself with the least effort is to spot very big flaws without looking too hard. This is the dream of the backyard or pseudo-scientist. When their expose's of flaws or their new architectural designs are subjected to critical analysis, they tend to complain that the city is run by elitists who won't let them in. The answer is that there aren't gates on the city of science, anyone can come in. The problem is that it's built on a bit of a hill, so you have to do a bit of work to get there (and a lot of people can't be bothered). Once you're in there you can build any building of any description you like. The only test is whether it stands up by itself. You can't stand beside it holding it up for everyone - they won't go inside if it looks shaky!! And there's no point complaining about the town planners if your building falls over! :o) It is easy to say that you are open to new ideas. To actualy change ideas you have held all your life (and which form the foundations of all your scientific thinking) is incredibly difficult. Past a certain age it almost never happens. This is why most scientists do their best work early on; not because of a decline in their mental powers, but because they just have too much baggage. Yes, I think this is a fair call. We also have to acknowledge that it's a generalisation and can't apply in all circumstances. For me, I believe I can put my money where my mouth is, I'm able to adjust my internal "city" if required. For example the last time I've had to do major work on my city was with the recent supernova results showing a (possibly) accelerating universe. When they were first announced I wasn't impressed. My model of the universe worked fine without a cosmological constant. Over the intervening time I've had to accept that it is at least quite possible there is a cosm constant (although I'm still waiting to see sources of systemic error eliminated from the results before I'm sure). | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 10/10/2001
11:48:43 |
| Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. | post id:
448672 |
We will all (myself included) be surprised at the extent to which the foundations of science change in the near future. As I've said before, I'm waiting (impatiently) for quantum gravity. I think when it arrives it will shake the foundations of either quantum dynamics or general relativity (if not both). I (sincerely) hope it will spawn new physics. When these changes occur, many will argue that the old ideas were not wrong, in the same way that Newton was not wrong. The old ideas are not wrong (at least in the usual context of the word) if they're built on, incorporated or extended. They are wrong if they're completely thrown out. For example Newtonian mechanics has been extended into general relativity - newtonian mechanics is still right. Some of the concepts of Newton's theory (eg absolute space and time) are thrown out, not incorporated anywhere - they're wrong. If for example quantum gravity turns out to be quantised space-time then GR will have been simply extended and so is not wrong (still applies). If however it turns out that quantum gravity has a QED-style formalism and a graviton-based mechanism then it may become necessary to throw out the GR idea of gravity as space-time. Interesting talking to you, 4D. | |
| From: Paul H ® | 09/10/2001
16:15:58 |
| Subject: All of Science, is Wrong. II | post id:
447432 |
Peter B, " "There's nothing in your most recent post that I didn't anticipate in my first posts." You've said this to a few of us. However, it's a rather empty statement because you can't prove it. I've proved it many times, by repeating parts of my initial posts in reply to repeated questions. Not that it needs proving. It's not an empty statement at all - it assures people that they're not being ignored - that they're objections have been anticipated and my response to them has already been posted. One was a geology lecturer... etc. My example was meant to illustrate; how scientific theories are always wrong. Second how the tribal nature of Science plays down this fact with dishonest enthusiasm. Granted I also used it to express what I think is the very common tribal conservatism that hold Science back. Despite your counter-examples, I think I made a valid generalisation. "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." - Tolstoy | |