The Goal of Science (split from EMR and Hydrogen atom)

[Dekan]

Related to that, it is quite possible to have multiple theories to explain some phenomenon.

 

For example, both Newtonian gravity and GR make predictions about the effects of gravity. In many cases, they are equally accurate. In some cases, GR is (significantly) more accurate. That does not mean that GR is "true" and Newton is "false". (Or that one is more "logical" than the other.) One model is more accurate than the other. That's all.

Do you seriously mean that Science isn't about trying to get to the bottom of things. It's only about explaining the phenomena, by making "models".

And these "models" needn't be logical They can even be in blatant defiance of logic The "models" don't have to be considered as "true" or "false".

 

As long as the "models" are "accurate" - ie they work out mathematically - that's all that matters?

 

This disastrous line of reasoning was unfortunately followed by the Ancient Greeks. They famously called it "saving the phenomena". Which is probably why they didn't progress very far in Science.

[Strange]

 

And these "models" needn't be logical

 

Of course they are logical; after all, they are mathematical models.

 

What people like the OP mean by "logical" is "it agrees with my preconceptions" or "it makes sense to me". People complain that relativity or quantum mechanics are not "logical"; all they mean is that they don't like the theory. Well, that's tough: they work.

 

What do you think the purpose of science is? (In other words, what do you think "getting to the bottom of things" means?)

[swansont]

Do you seriously mean that Science isn't about trying to get to the bottom of things. It's only about explaining the phenomena, by making "models".

And these "models" needn't be logical They can even be in blatant defiance of logic The "models" don't have to be considered as "true" or "false".

 

As long as the "models" are "accurate" - ie they work out mathematically - that's all that matters?

 

This disastrous line of reasoning was unfortunately followed by the Ancient Greeks. They famously called it "saving the phenomena". Which is probably why they didn't progress very far in Science.

 

Science is not the quest for some ultimate truth. In physics, for example, it's hard to navigate around it without bumping into conceptual constructs used that do not represent real, physical things, such as electric or magnetic fields or phonons. We use them because nature behaves as if they are real, and we can understand more complex behavior if we use them, but there ultimately is no claim that these physically exist as entities.

[Dekan]

 

Science is not the quest for some ultimate truth.

But, shouldn't it be? Because otherwise, isn't it just Technology?

 

Technology is good for making things work. Like for example, a steam-engine. A working steam-engine could be built by a competent engineer. Just by following the blueprints. The blueprints would show how to assemble the bits and pieces. Such as the furnace, the boiler, the steampipes, the cylinder, the piston, the connecting-rod, and the wheels.

 

These components could all be assembled, by the engineer. And put together to create a steam-engine. Without any understanding, by the engineer, of what the components actually do.

Just as birds build their nests, by collecting twigs and bits of stuff, and shoving them together. The birds don't really understand why they're doing it. Does the male bird ruminate, and consider:

 

"I've just mated with a female bird. She'll soon be laying eggs. These eggs will require a suitably-shaped receptacle, to hold the eggs while they get incubated. So I'll build one"

 

Surely not. The male bird just follows a blueprint, which is hard-wired into his head: "After mating - collect and assemble twigs in this order".

This results in the production of a competently-engineered nest. Which works. It gives the right results. It enables the chicks to be protected and a new generation reared.

 

Could this be how scientific blueprints such as Quantum Mechanics operate? They get sort of hard-wired into Physics. They work, they give the right results. So each new generation of Physicists, is born into the protective nest of QM. The occupants of the nest, feel safe and secure.

 

But every so often, a cuckoo comes along........

[swansont]

But, shouldn't it be? Because otherwise, isn't it just Technology?

 

 

No, it's not just technology.

 

I don't see how your little story is an analogue for science. For a start, you are talking about engineering, which is a different discipline.

[Dekan]

Engineering shouldn't be disparaged. Science is all very well, but to get practical results, you need engineers.

For example, Scientists speculated for hundreds of years about what the Moon's surface might be like.

 

Didn't it take rocket-engineers to build the Saturn-5, so we could land there, and find out for certain?

 

Of course they are logical; after all, they are mathematical models.

 

What people like the OP mean by "logical" is "it agrees with my preconceptions" or "it makes sense to me". People complain that relativity or quantum mechanics are not "logical"; all they mean is that they don't like the theory. Well, that's tough: they work.

 

What do you think the purpose of science is? (In other words, what do you think "getting to the bottom of things" means?)

I take a simple view. I think the purpose of Science is let us understand things. I don't see how such understanding can be achieved by continually inventing "particles". Every week, there's a new one.

 

How many "particles" are currently supposed to exist (as of today)? Obviously, it's getting silly.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Dekan

[Strange]

Could this be how scientific blueprints such as Quantum Mechanics operate? They get sort of hard-wired into Physics. They work, they give the right results. So each new generation of Physicists, is born into the protective nest of QM. The occupants of the nest, feel safe and secure.

 

But every so often, a cuckoo comes along........

 

This is the "paradigm shift" model described by Kuhn. This does happen quite often. There have been several just in my lifetime. Including ...

I don't see how such understanding can be achieved by continually inventing "particles". Every week, there's a new one.

 

How many "particles" are currently supposed to exist (as of today)? Obviously, it's getting silly.

 

That was how particle physics operated when I was young. There was a "zoo" of particles with no obvious pattern or connections between them. Then the quark model cam along and we are down to 17 particles of 3 basic types. And some (small) number of possible extensions depending on which way the next paradigm shift goes.

 

 

Engineering shouldn't be disparaged. Science is all very well, but to get practical results, you need engineers.

 

I am an engineer. We share some of the processes, rigour and dependence on quantitative evidence with science. But we are trying to produce practical products rather than determine general underlying principles (which is what science does).

Science can't ever say that what we know so far is "true" because you can never have that level of certainty (similarly, as engineers, we can never say that this new design will definitely work). There is no proof, just "not shown to be wrong yet".

[swansont]

Engineering shouldn't be disparaged.

 

I didn't disparage engineering, I just pointed out that it's distinct from science, and the topic of discussion is the goal of science. You're arguing a different point.

I take a simple view. I think the purpose of Science is let us understand things. I don't see how such understanding can be achieved by continually inventing "particles". Every week, there's a new one.

 

How many "particles" are currently supposed to exist (as of today)? Obviously, it's getting silly.

 

You're blaming the messenger.