The Goal of Science

[swansont]

 

 

Yes, I know that. I just want to clarify, how come science is not the search for truth?

 

 

Philosophy already has that covered. No need for redundancy.

[Eise]

 

So science recognizes or uncover what truth is?

Philosophy already has that covered. No need for redundancy.

 

No, no, philosophy does not cover 'truth'. At most it is concerned with the concept of truth, which is something different.

 

Philosophy does not find true propositions about the world. That is science' business. But it does formulate true propositions about our thinking about the world. So it can clarify about methods, concepts, etc of our thinking, also the thinking in science.

 

So my 2 cents as philosopher: the concept of 'truth' suggests as if it something 'out there'. But it isn't. It is a relationship between propositions and praxis (that can be empirical, or ethical, maybe even aesthetical). In the case of science these propositions refer to empirical facts. But as mentioned above, the model behind the facts is just that: a model. Its success lies in the possibility to make predictions, not in that it is a perfect image of reality. No better illustration than the succession of scientific theories, which empirical predictions become more and more comprehensive.

 

But 'The Truth' is a mirage we should get rid of.

[TheBeardedDude]

There are two types of people: Those that can extrapolate from incomplete data

[Ken Fabian]

Science searches the truth. If science has an incomplete explanation of reality (since it is still discovering the mysteries of reality) how can people already established a strong belief of something, yet science is not completely explaining the reality?

This isn't entirely clear to me but.. It sounds like a distrust of uncertain or incomplete knowledge - with science based knowledge acknowledged to be incomplete and retaining degrees of uncertainty. Yet alternatives like religious beliefs might claim absolute certainty and completeness whilst rejecting the requirement for evidence of that being so - and may include the dogmatic rejection of contrary evidence because being contrary is taken as evidence that it is false. Whilst uncertainty allows for knowledge to be tested, changed and improved, absolute certainty resists improvement.

 

The amount of uncertainty within science based knowledge can vary widely, from so near to certain as to be for practical purposes indistinguishable from it to very uncertain hypotheses that can exist as allowable possibilities within the bounds of what is known yet to be confirmed or rejected; what may be unique to science is embracing that uncertainty and making it into motivation to further test and refine knowledge.

 

I'm wary of any absolute definitions of what science is or how it is undertaken; I suspect even those are subject to change in the face of changing methodologies and human needs. Even so there are some common, unifying threads including accuracy of observation, measurement and record keeping, the requirement for reasoning to be logical, the making available of data and reasoning to peers for critique, review and replication.

[Strange]

So we are not really sure what reality really is base on science.

 

 

We can only ever know what our senses and measurements tell us. As such, we can never know what "reality" really is. It might be identical to what we perceive and measure (in which case, what science describes is "reality"). Or "reality" might be completely different (or not even exist).

 

By definition, we have no way of knowing: solipsism is completely unfalsifiable. You and your thoughts might be the only thing that exists. All the other people on this forum, the technology it uses and the latest scientific discoveries could be entirely created by your mind.

 

On the other hand, there could be an external reality which we observe and build scientific theories to describe.

 

Nothing can distinguish these (or any variations in between). But that makes no difference to the practice of science.

[Randolpin]

The irony is that, scientists have strong belief (e.g. atheism) of what reality is, when in fact, they don't know what reality is, since science is not the search for truth.

Science seeks to describe and accurately predict the behaviour of the universe through the use of models. If the models work they are considered to be an accurate reflection of the way the universe behaves. Science doesn't do truth because it requires total commitment to an idea and the past shows that ideas change, so the notion of truth is always a moving target.

 

Excuse me first, for example Newton proposed the law of universal gravitation while Einstein developed it to a more profound model of gravity, the general theory of relativity. Meaning, models could be develop for a closer look of the picture of reality. From a simple incomplete newtonian gravity into a more complex profound einsteinian gravity. Truth is not a moving target from science, in fact, science slowly building up the whole true picture of reality through successive revisions of scientific models which best describes the reality. Models are revised or developed from simple to more and more complex because our reality is really complex so it requires a complex model to describe it. I see it in the way that scientists invent models, revise or develop it until it exactly describe the reality.

 

So I can say that science really searches the truth.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Randolpin

[swansont]

 

So I can say that science really searches the truth.

 

 

Sure. Anyone can be wrong.

 

How do you test that a model reflects reality?

[Randolpin]

 

 

Sure. Anyone can be wrong.

 

How do you test that a model reflects reality?

 

By building instruments

[swansont]

 

By building instruments

 

 

How does that test reality? How do I know that gravity is being caused by the curving of spacetime, and not by invisible pink fairies pulling me down, in exactly the same way as predicted by Newton/Einstein? How do I test that?

[Randolpin]

 

 

How does that test reality? How do I know that gravity is being caused by the curving of spacetime, and not by invisible pink fairies pulling me down, in exactly the same way as predicted by Newton/Einstein? How do I test that?

 

The best tester of it is the gravity probe b which prove general relativity.

[swansont]

 

The best tester of it is the gravity probe b which prove general relativity.

 

 

That showed GR is correct. It does not show it is reality/truth.

[Randolpin]

 

 

That showed GR is correct. It does not show it is reality/truth.

 

Yes G.R, is correct because it describes the reality as what the gravity probe b presents. G.R. could be revised in the future but G.R. already put's one of the many puzzles of reality until it become complete, because our reality is like a jigsaw puzzle, we keep on finding the missing piece until it become complete.

 

Can you please read it again:

 

The irony is that, scientists have strong belief (e.g. atheism) of what reality is, when in fact, they don't know what reality is, since science is not the search for truth.

 

Excuse me first, for example Newton proposed the law of universal gravitation while Einstein developed it to a more profound model of gravity, the general theory of relativity. Meaning, models could be develop for a closer look of the picture of reality. From a simple incomplete newtonian gravity into a more complex profound einsteinian gravity. Truth is not a moving target from science, in fact, science slowly building up the whole true picture of reality through successive revisions of scientific models which best describes the reality. Models are revised or developed from simple to more and more complex because our reality is really complex so it requires a complex model to describe it. I see it in the way that scientists invent models, revise or develop it until it exactly describe the reality.

 

So I can say that science really searches the truth.

[swansont]

 

Yes G.R, is correct because it describes the reality as what the gravity probe b presents. G.R. could be revised in the future but G.R. already put's one of the many puzzles of reality until it become complete, because our reality is like a jigsaw puzzle, we keep on finding the missing piece until it become complete.

 

Can you please read it again:

 

 

 

You can get the right answer the wrong way. How do you know that there isn't some other mechanism that gives the same answer?

 

The flip side of this is that there are many parts of basic physics that we know we are just making up, in order to make calculations easier. There's no pretense that such things are truth. They are calculational conveniences.

[Randolpin]

 

 

You can get the right answer the wrong way. How do you know that there isn't some other mechanism that gives the same answer?

 

The flip side of this is that there are many parts of basic physics that we know we are just making up, in order to make calculations easier. There's no pretense that such things are truth. They are calculational conveniences.

 

Yes it could be but I mean for example the theory of everything is developed from various discoveries of different scientists by uniting the different forces of nature like Maxwell discovered that electricity and magnetism are united into electromagnetism. Newton united the gravity of the heavens and the earth through his universal law of gravitation and Einstein even dream of the unification of gravity and electromagnetism but unsuccesful. But for now, TOE provides a unification of the 4 fundamental forces of nature through several theories like the m-theory etc. TOE tries to a put a piece of puzzle of reality by uniting the forces of nature.

[swansont]

 

Yes it could be but I mean for example the theory of everything is developed from various discoveries of different scientists by uniting the different forces of nature like Maxwell discovered that electricity and magnetism are united into electromagnetism. Newton united the gravity of the heavens and the earth through his universal law of gravitation and Einstein even dream of the unification of gravity and electromagnetism but unsuccesful. But for now, TOE provides a unification of the 4 fundamental forces of nature through several theories like the m-theory etc. TOE tries to a put a piece of puzzle of reality by uniting the forces of nature.

 

 

That wouldn't mean it's truth. It would mean we had a good model.

[Randolpin]

 

 

That wouldn't mean it's truth. It would mean we had a good model.

 

is it?

[swansont]

 

is it?

 

 

A good model is one that works. But that's all you can tell is that it works. Not that it reflects truth.

 

Let's try a simple example: a model gives you a prediction of 7, and the measured answer is 7. The model arrives at that because it add 5 and 2. But you can get to 7 by adding 3 and 4, or 6 and 1. So there's no way to be sure that 5+2 is truth, since all you can do is compare your answer with the measured value.

[Strange]

The irony is that, scientists have strong belief (e.g. atheism) of what reality is, when in fact, they don't know what reality is, since science is not the search for truth.

 

 

Do you have any evidence that scientists have stronger beliefs about things than other people? As they are trained to be sceptical, I would guess the opposite was true.

 

 

 

Excuse me first, for example Newton proposed the law of universal gravitation while Einstein developed it to a more profound model of gravity, the general theory of relativity. Meaning, models could be develop for a closer look of the picture of reality. From a simple incomplete newtonian gravity into a more complex profound einsteinian gravity. Truth is not a moving target from science, in fact, science slowly building up the whole true picture of reality through successive revisions of scientific models which best

 

The trouble is that this example (and many others) do not involve getting an incrementally more accurate model - it is a case where one model is replaced by one that is totally different. But the old model still works. So you can't say the old model is an approximation to reality and the new one is a slightly better approximation: they are completely different (incompatible) descriptions.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Strange

[iNow]

The irony is that, scientists have strong belief (e.g. atheism) of what reality is...

Atheism is not a system of beliefs any more than bald is a hair color or choosing not to collect stamps is a hobby.

[Phi for All]

The irony is that, scientists have strong belief (e.g. atheism) of what reality is, when in fact, they don't know what reality is, since science is not the search for truth

 

I find more irony in the fact that you value truth so highly, yet you have such misconceptions about many things, and seem predisposed to fixing your beliefs strongly based on those misconceptions. You don't know what atheism is (it's a lack of belief, not a strong belief), you don't know what science is, yet you think you're seeking Truth by fooling yourself.

 

Ironic.

 

 

 

You remind me of a joke:

 

Randolpin: "You look familiar, and I never forget a face. What's your name?"

George: "It's George."

Randolpin: "No, that's not it."

[Randolpin]

Einstein Gr. is an improved version of how we look at gravity.

 

 

A good model is one that works. But that's all you can tell is that it works. Not that it reflects truth.

 

Let's try a simple example: a model gives you a prediction of 7, and the measured answer is 7. The model arrives at that because it add 5 and 2. But you can get to 7 by adding 3 and 4, or 6 and 1. So there's no way to be sure that 5+2 is truth, since all you can do is compare your answer with the measured value.

 

I mean they are the same in some cases but the difference is that the new model is more accurate in describing the reality which we are part of. For example, we will compare again Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity. Newton himself in his universal law of gravitation really don't know how gravity works meaning his model is less accurate in describing the reality of gravity, but time had passed and then Einstein existed and formulated his G.R. which accurately explain how gravity works. It shows a new profound understanding not only on gravity itself but also a new look on the property of space and time. Meaning, through Einstein's G.R. our knowledge of reality become more and more complex.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Randolpin

[swansont]

Einstein Gr. is an improved version of how we look at gravity.

 

I mean they are the same in some cases but the difference is that the new model is more accurate in describing the reality which we are part of. For example, we will compare again Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity. Newton himself in his universal law of gravitation really don't know how gravity works meaning his model is less accurate in describing the reality of gravity, but time had passed and then Einstein existed and formulated his G.R. which accurately explain how gravity works. It shows a new profound understanding not only on gravity itself but also a new look on the property of space and time. Meaning, through Einstein's G.R. our knowledge of reality become more and more complex.

 

 

The model works better, but there's no way to test if it's "truth". Only that it gives the right answer.

[Sriman Dutta]

Science is the study of the nature of Nature.