Why can we never be certain of our scientific theories?

[D H]

Hi Dave. I think we have to be very careful with the usage of the word "TRUTH".

Exactly. Scientific theories are not "truth". Thinking they are the truth confuses the map for the territory. Scientific theories are a human-made construct, a model (an ever improving model) of [strike]the truth[/strike] reality.

And that's a good thing. If some science did finally discover the "truth," the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, that moment would make that science a dead endeavor. It is precisely because scientists do not yet know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that makes science continue to be a viable endeavor.

The fact that the truth is to some extent elusive to science does not open the door to crackpots ideas such as over unity devices, quack medical cures, or young Earth creationism. Some scientific ideas are so solid (2nd theory of thermodynamics, basic medicine, evolution) that those doors are shut. Moreover, those particular nonsense ideas are falsified by evidence. The only way to teach them is by subverting science -- which is exactly what the advocates of these ideas have been attempting to do.

 

[Pythagorean]

We invent the definitions to generate a clear consise understanding of the subject matter. This is no different to our laws of physics, did we invent the laws of physics?

(sorry, missed this post yesterday)
I don't disagree; My point was that academic subjects aren't inherent universal objects in the sense that all of math or all of physics is either this or that. Academic subjects are subject to their human construction and their pedagogical approaches. Invention and discovery, it seems to me, always go hand in hand.

When we must formulate a question to ask, the invention is first seeded by the confines of our question. Answering the question (or finding it to be a wrong question) is an act of discovery.

 

[Functor97]

Much of mathematics makes absolutely no bones about being utterly divorced from any reality.

For example, mathematics can and does deal with an arbitrarily large number of dimensions that are not even intended to model any real-world counterpart.

Mathematics does so much more than describe our "reality", it describes and explains every possible reality. Every conceivable universe is governed by mathematics, hence my point that mathematics transcends our menial view of reality.

 

[Functor97]

Exactly. Scientific theories are not "truth". Thinking they are the truth confuses the map for the territory. Scientific theories are a human-made construct, a model (an ever improving model) of [strike]the truth[/strike] reality.

And that's a good thing. If some science did finally discover the "truth," the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, that moment would make that science a dead endeavor. It is precisely because scientists do not yet know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that makes science continue to be a viable endeavor.

The fact that the truth is to some extent elusive to science does not open the door to crackpots ideas such as over unity devices, quack medical cures, or young Earth creationism. Some scientific ideas are so solid (2nd theory of thermodynamics, basic medicine, evolution) that those doors are shut. Moreover, those particular nonsense ideas are falsified by evidence. The only way to teach them is by subverting science -- which is exactly what the advocates of these ideas have been attempting to do.

Scientific theories are not human-made constructs. They are human processes to understand. I do not claim that we will ever have absolute truth, but we by no means create quantum mechanics, we discover it. As far as humans can be concerned science is indicative of truth. We cannot step outside of humanity and observe the universe, we do not even know if the universe "exists" without observation. My op is Why can we never reach a level of truth within the scientific process, why should there be a limiting process to observation and empirical experimentation? It is a philosophical question, hence why i posted it in that forum.

Humans should not be concerned with a truth exclusive from our observation. If the universe works at a level utterly distinct from our theories, then it might as well not exist at all. The whole conception of existence is reneged by this point. As far as we should care, as far as is possible, science reflects truth, and mathematics is the heart of science.

Pythagorean posted a quote from Galileo earlier. I have one too. "The book of nature lies open for all to read, and it is written in the language of mathematics."

 

[ViewsofMars]

Thanks DH for your feedback. Let's continue to discuss 'scientific theories'. Here are some excerpts from pages 4 and 5 of Evolution on the Front Line: An Abbreviated Guide for Teaching Evolution, from Project 2061 at AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) though I recommend reading the document in its entirety:

Science Explains and Predicts
Scientists strive to make sense of observations of phenomena by constructing explanations for them that use, or are consistent with, currently accepted scientific principles. Such explanations—theories—may be either sweeping or restricted, but they must be logically sound and incorporate a significant body of scientifically valid observations. The credibility of scientific theories often comes from their ability to show relationships among phenomena that previously seemed unrelated. The theory of moving continents, for example, has grown in credibility as it has shown relationships among such diverse phenomena as earthquakes, volcanoes, the match between types of fossils on different continents, the shapes of continents, and the contours of the ocean floors.

The essence of science is validation by observation. But it is not enough for scientific theories to fit only the observations that are already known. Theories should also fit additional observations that were not used in formulating the theories in the first place; that is, theories should have predictive power. Demonstrating the predictive power of a theory does not necessarily require the prediction of events in the future. The predictions may be about evidence from the past that has not yet been found or studied. A theory about the origins of human beings, for example, can be tested by new discoveries of human-like fossil remains. This approach is clearly necessary for reconstructing the events in the history of the Earth or of the life forms on it. It is also necessary for the study of processes that usually occur very slowly, such as the building of mountains or the aging of stars. Stars, for example, evolve more slowly than we can usually observe. Theories of the evolution of stars, however, may predict unsuspected relationships between features of starlight that can then be sought in existing collections of data about stars.

Scientists Try to Identify and Avoid Bias
When faced with a claim that something is true, scientists respond by asking what evidence supports it. But scientific evidence can be biased in how the data are interpreted, in the recording or reporting of the data, or even in the choice of what data to consider in the first place. Scientists’ nationality, sex, ethnic origin, age, political convictions, and so on may incline them to look for or emphasize one or another kind of evidence or interpretation. For example, for many years the study of primates—by male scientists—focused on the competitive social behavior of males. Not until female scientists entered the field was the importance of female primates’ community-building behavior recognized. Bias attributable to the investigator, the sample, the method, or the instrument may not be completely avoidable in every instance, but scientists want to know the possible sources of bias and how bias is likely to influence evidence. Scientists want, and are expected, to be as alert to possible bias in their own work as in that of other scientists, although such objectivity is not always achieved. One safeguard against undetected bias in an area of study is to have many different investigators or groups of investigators working in it.
http://www.project2061.org/publications/guides/evolution.pdf

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The difference between the skeptic and the believer is that the believer believes in things that are false while the skeptic believes in things that are true.

 

[Functor97]

The difference between the skeptic and the believer is that the believer believes in things that are false while the skeptic believes in things that are true.

I think what some here have been arguing is that truth and falsehood are human constructs or at least something beyond out cognition. Something i quite disagree with.

 

[D H]

Exactly. Scientific theories are not "truth". Thinking they are the truth confuses the map for the territory. Scientific theories are a human-made construct, a model (an ever improving model) of [strike]the truth[/strike] reality.

Scientific theories are not human-made constructs.

They most certainly are. You are doing exactly what I warned against, confusing the map for the territory. I strongly encourage you to read the links that Simon Bridge provided in post #26. While you are at it, read up on philosophy of science. Read about Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. And you might want to google the term "map-territory relation."

 

[Functor97]

They most certainly are. You are doing exactly what I warned against, confusing the map for the territory. I strongly encourage you to read the links that Simon Bridge provided in post #26. While you are at it, read up on philosophy of science. Read about Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. And you might want to google the term "map-territory relation."

Look i understand what you are saying, but i still disagree. We construct the scaffolding, but the subject matter is quite far from a "human construct". I read once that feminists were explaining our problems with fluid dynamics, by juxtaposing it with classical dynamics or "rigid" body problems. They reasoned that because science was a human construct ruled over by a patriarchal societ it was no wonder that "rigid" (Thinking in terms of phallic symbols) bodies were more easily understood than fluid dynamics which they compared with the womans menstural cycle.

Needless to say, this discussion is invoked in my mind everytime a philosopher or postmodernist claims "science is all a human construct"... I feel the utmost contempt for this idea, and believe it to be the results of a social fear to reason and think, its so much easier to disparage science than engage with it...

I realize that our postulates and "book-keeping" of science are human creations, but these processess are always indicative of a deeoer undeniable process. No matter how you argue, the Earth is not carried on the shoulders of turtles, why? Because we have evidence upon evidence which rejects this view. If science is a human construct, it is only because we engage with it.

 

[Evo]

Look i understand what you are saying, but i still disagree. We construct the scaffolding, but the subject matter is quite far from a "human construct". I read once that feminists were explaining our problems with fluid dynamics, by juxtaposing it with classical dynamics or "rigid" body problems. They reasoned that because science was a human construct ruled over by a patriarchal societ it was no wonder that "rigid" (Thinking in terms of phallic symbols) bodies were more easily understood than fluid dynamics which they compared with the womans menstural cycle.

Needless to say, this discussion is invoked in my mind everytime a philosopher or postmodernist claims "science is all a human construct"... I feel the utmost contempt for this idea, and believe it to be the results of a social fear to reason and think, its so much easier to disparage science than engage with it...

I realize that our postulates and "book-keeping" of science are human creations, but these processess are always indicative of an undeniable process. No matter how argue, the Earth is not carried on the shoulders of turtles, why? Because we have evidence upon evidence which rejects this view. If science is a human construct, it is only because we engage with it.

I need citations for all of your claims, except the turtles. We don't allow claims to be made without mainstream sources. Scientific claims need peer reviewed papers in a mainstream accepted journal.

 

[Functor97]

I need citations for all of your claims, except the turtles. We don't allow claims to be made without mainstream sources. Scientific claims need peer reviewed papers in a mainstream accepted journal.

sorry, just to confirm, would you like the sources of the feminist critique of classical mechanics or my belief that postulates of science are human mechanisms to explain fundamental truths?

I can provide the first, but i am afraid the latter is only a philosophical belief.

 

[Evo]

sorry, just to confirm, would you like the sources of the feminist critique of classical mechanics or my belief that postulates of science are human mechanisms to explain fundamental truths?

I can provide the first, but i am afraid the latter is only a philosophical belief.

If you have nothing to back up your beliefs and they don't follow mainstream science, then there is nothing to discuss. *Philosophical* musings must agree with mainstrem science on this forum as this is a forum for mainstream science only. Perhaps you should post your thoughts in a forum that has different rules. Nothing wrong with your questioning, it's just not what we do here.

 

[Functor97]

If you have nothing to back up your beliefs and they don't follow mainstream science, then there is nothing to discuss. *Philosophical* musings must agree with mainstrem science on this forum as this is a forum for mainstream science only. Perhaps you should post your thoughts in a forum that has different rules.

Yes, i can back up my beliefs. We define existence as everything we interact with. It is pointless to claim that there is something more, it is an inherently untestable claim. Truth is contained within our science, for our science is the measurement with all we interact with. The fact that we humans survive, and do not perish is quite an argument that our comprehension of reality must at some level correspond to reality distinct from ourselves. I realize that this is an almost anthropic idea, but i think it supports the fact that our science is objective.

 

[Functor97]

I would like to see an argument that convincingly supports the fact that the laws of science are human constructs. Which i might add is less in tune with mainstream science than any opinion i have expressed.

 

[Evo]

I would like to see an argument that convincingly supports the fact that the laws of science are human constructs. Which i might add is less in tune with mainstream science than any opinion i have expressed.

Your OP said theories, and now you've moved the goalpost to laws of nature?

This is no longer on topic.