Is the Majority Opinion Always Right?

[cmb]

Neither is there a scientific dogma as a dogma is a doctrine that is asserted to be true and held to be unquestionable.

I think you've just stumbled into a philosophical matter there.

Could it not be argued that scientific dogma claims that the physics of today will apply tomorrow, and that this is an assertion that is not fully proven merely by showing that today's physics is the same as yesterdays?

If I argue that a day in the future will dawn when the underlying behaviour of physics will be different to that of physics in the previous day, is this not questioning the unquestionable? There is simply no way I can prove that, but equally there is no way that I can be proved wrong. It would, therefore, be dogmatic to argue either way.

The assumption that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning is just that, an assumption. It is in the nature of science that we consider it 'proven' that it will inevitably rise, because we believe we understand all the basic features of what the Sun is and celestial mechanics and all the other things that make us oh-so-clever.

But just consider if it did not do so? Let's say the Sun just snuffed itself out. We feel pretty sure, to many many 9's of probability, that this would not happen. But what if it did? What would happen? Would science be rejected? ...No, what would happen would be that 'science' would then go looking for a rational explanation as to why the Sun did not rise, and it would accommodate the new phenomena within it (for as long as there would be 'scientists' left to do science, that is!).

Science generally regards matters shown to >2sigma consistency to be proven, and >6sigma probability to be unquestionable, does it not? But if a 7th sigma event comes along, we get all excited and science extends itself to incorporate the phenomena.

So I do not agree that science does not consist of certain dogmatic principles, but I hope you will agree that there is a fundamental different between science and doctrine, and it is that science seeks to question its own dogma, and will refresh it when it is no longer fit to describe and predict all that we know. Doctrine has fixed dogma that seeks to control knowledge so it fits the dogma, whereas science has this sort of 'provisional dogma' that it seeks to update. It sounds contradictory at first sight, but I'd describe science as actually going looking for why it is wrong (and if it does not question itself, then it isn't science!).

I guess you might argue that science is seeking an explanation for everything, and if we [philosophically] speculate that there is 'an-explanation-for-everything', but simply that we've not got there yet, that this 'explanation-for-everything' would actually be 'a dogma' not subject to change.

Philosophically, then, science will become 'static dogma' once we reach 'an-explanation-for-everything'. By logical self-exclusion, science will therefore never be able to reach 'an-explanation-for-everything' because if it were to do so then it would no longer be science!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think you've just stumbled into a philosophical matter there.

Could it not be argued that scientific dogma claims that the physics of today will apply tomorrow, and that this is an assertion that is not fully proven merely by showing that today's physics is the same as yesterdays?

Science is philosophy and uniformitarianism is part pragmatic, part verified but not unquestionable. Firstly it is part pragmatic because without counter evidence it is useful to consider the principle of uniformity e.g. if I've tested a drug on ten thousand people under expensive phase I, II, III clinical trials it would be ludicrous not to use it on the first patient because they weren't part of the trials, likewise if I have boiled a kettle in the morning to get hot water it is ludicrous for me to not to assume that it will work in the evening (essentially if you were to through out uniformitarianism you would have to go through life repeatedly testing everything*). Secondly uniformity is verified by repeatedly tested models. Sure whilst it may work one thousand times and not on the one thousand and first but the statistically significant series of confirmations.

Regarding its questionability nothing is unquestionable in science but unless you can provide a good reason as to why not adopting uniformitarianism would be better than adopting uniformitarianism then your argument fails.

*Literally everything:

• You wouldn't press the same keys on the keyboard in case they didn't work
• You wouldn't try to use your mouth to speak in case that was no longer its job
• You wouldn't breathe just in case oxygen was now poisonous
• You wouldn't leave by your front door incase it didn't lead to the same place
• You wouldn't travel in case gravity changed and squashed you to the ground
• You wouldn't light a match in case the physics regarding combustion had changed and you fear it might release a nuclear explosion

In other words for anyone to live a functioning, rational life they must adopt uniformitarianism.

The assumption that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning is just that, an assumption. It is in the nature of science that we consider it 'proven' that it will inevitably rise, because we believe we understand all the basic features of what the Sun is and celestial mechanics and all the other things that make us oh-so-clever.

Au contraire, it is the nature of science that we use observations to build predictive, explanatory models that we test over and over again. If something were to happen that ruined that model (e.g. the various models that describe the movements of the planets, the luminosity of the sun etc) we would change and using the new observations try to build a new model. If that model ended up throwing out most of uniformitarianism by showing that the laws of physics can change at any time at any point then so be it.

 

[cmb]

Au contraire, it is the nature of science that we use observations to build predictive, explanatory models that we test over and over again. If something were to happen that ruined that model (e.g. the various models that describe the movements of the planets, the luminosity of the sun etc) we would change and using the new observations try to build a new model. If that model ended up throwing out most of uniformitarianism by showing that the laws of physics can change at any time at any point then so be it.

You might note that I also contradicted the para you pulled out (it was a 'straw man' for me to criticize for myself!), so I guess we are in full agreement here!

I'd be interested in your response to the final 'lemma' that I proposed, the last para? Do you think that is [philosophically] correct? As we approach 'full consensus' and science beings to predict 'everything', would science be 'completed' and would it self-extinguish its own raison-d'etre? The corollary is that we need disagreement for science to live?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Do you think that is [philosophically] correct? As we approach 'full consensus' and science beings to predict 'everything', would science be 'completed' and would it self-extinguish its own raison-d'etre? The corollary is that we need disagreement for science to live?

I doubt science will ever be finished. Even if we discovered some theory of everything (that irrefutably proved that it was the TOE) there is still the near infinite variables of how the world can manifest. So what if you can in theory explain every atomic/quantum interaction in this new species of bacteria? We still don't know anything about it until we've actually studied it.

Also you could simplistically divide science into discovery and application e.g. "what role does this protein fill in metastatic cancer cells?" and "can we suppress this protein's expression in cancer cells to reduce metastasis?" So even if a specific field (or even the whole of science) approached the point of understanding everything there are near-infinite variables for application.

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess you might argue that science is seeking an explanation for everything, and if we [philosophically] speculate that there is 'an-explanation-for-everything', but simply that we've not got there yet, that this 'explanation-for-everything' would actually be 'a dogma' not subject to change.

Philosophically, then, science will become 'static dogma' once we reach 'an-explanation-for-everything'. By logical self-exclusion, science will therefore never be able to reach 'an-explanation-for-everything' because if it were to do so then it would no longer be science!

No. Your conclusion is flawed.

Say we actually some day find an-explanation-for-everything. It remains so as long as there's no new contradictory evidence. As long as it continues to explain all observations, it is not dogmatic to espouse it.

It is only if new, contradictory evidence appears - and there would have to be a preponderance of it - that sticking to our explanation-for-everything could be construed as dogma.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Say we actually some day find an-explanation-for-everything. It remains so as long as there's no new contradictory evidence.

On top of this even if we had a self-affirming, absolute theory of everything that would not make it dogma. Dogma is unquestionable in that questions are not allowed, even if the scientific community had a perfect TOE people would still be allowed to question but inevitably their questioning would fail. That is the difference between dogma and having a correct answer.

 

[cmb]

No. Your conclusion is flawed.

Say we actually some day find an-explanation-for-everything. It remains so as long as there's no new contradictory evidence.

Then, we hadn't found 'an-explanation-for-everything'. I'm talking about a God-like 'explanation-for-everything' to which nothing new would ever be found. My 'conclusion' is 'perfect' [I defined it!] it is a mental conception, but the interpretation is debatable! What I was interested in using the concept for was to judge if it told us anything about whether science will always need disagreement within it for it to be a living activity - that is to say, if everyone is in agreement, is it still science (because there is nothing that is being debated, hypothesised and then tested)?

 

[DaveC426913]

Then, we hadn't found 'an-explanation-for-everything'.

It is impossible to prove that nothing new will come along. An explanation for everything must needs cover only all evidence we have acquired to-date.

I'm talking about a God-like 'explanation-for-everything'

Ah. Then what you get is pink unicorns and faeries.

 

[Evo]

This discussion has become pointless.