# Can or does science accurately describe our reality? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 16, 2010, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966 "2010-07-16T21:46:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/81 "2010-07-21T13:21:47Z")
Well, there’s a bit of a difference between asking whether or not science describes reality, or if it can provide a unique ontology. The ontological nature of time in Newton’s theory is generally taken to be different than in Einstein’s, that’s true; however, even in this sense, Newton’s theory, as long as it is not extended beyond its domain of validity, is perfectly compatible with an Einsteinian view of time. Contrariwise, Newtonian time doesn’t work in the context of relativity. So what one probably could say is that scientific progress merely constrains the range of possible ontologies, perhaps, if one is optimistic about these things, eventually culminating in one ‘final’ model, a theory of everything, that uniquely singles out just one ontology, which may then be considered the ‘true’ one. But even if that never works out, I’d still consider a theory that provides answers to all questions one asks of it that agree with observation a perfectly adequate description of reality, even if it is compatible with multiple ontologies. In any case, there’s certainly no claim within science, or within any given theory, that some ontology it is compatible with is ‘the’ definite one. It’s essential to the philosophy of science that any given theory is to be considered valid only provisionally, always allowing for the possibility of falsification. So, in this way, Newtonian mechanics does _not_ claim that time is absolute; however, it is fully compatible with that claim. It is _also_ compatible with the relativistic notion of time, as long as you don’t extend it beyond its boundaries; and the possible existence of these boundaries is always expressly allowed for. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/82 "2010-07-21T16:06:45Z")
> [@SyuRi](#): > > Now since it has been shown that many different accepted theories throughout the ages have lead to different philosophical beliefs about the world we can see that applying science to our understanding of how reality is, is not correct. Because in 10 years the theory might be debased and everything that we thought before and hence based our beliefs on was incorrect. Now, this, right here, this seems to be the problem. What the hell does ‘applying science to our understanding of how reality is’ mean? ---
**Author:** ![SyuRi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SyuRi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SyuRi)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/83 "2010-07-21T17:03:09Z")
Because we’re led to believe by science that reality is someway, while it could be someway else. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/84 "2010-07-21T17:27:50Z")
> [@SyuRi](#): > > Because we’re led to believe by science that reality is someway, while it could be someway else. Science acknowledges a lot more than that. Any physicist worth her salt will acknowledge that the current understanding is wrong or at least fundamentally incomplete. It’s just better than what the scientific consensus was before. And the only reason we know that it’s wrong right now is because of science. I would point you and your friend again to the link I provided in post #51. Especially wrt the “science changes every 10 years” bit. Even with sciences as notoriously fickle as nutrition, we’re still making overall progress, I think. When you’re talking about physics, that shouldn’t even be in doubt. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/85 "2010-07-22T00:02:00Z")
This sounds like a job for **GENERAL SEMANTICS** [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25457/25457-h/25457-h.html](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25457/25457-h/25457-h.html) 😃😃😃 psik ---
**Author:** ![SyuRi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SyuRi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SyuRi)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/86 "2010-07-22T01:13:41Z")
What’s so funny about it? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/87 "2010-07-22T01:30:25Z")
> [@SyuRi](#): > > What’s so funny about it? I dunno. Did you read the link I referred you to? It’s a lot shorter and more readable. If you’re really lazy: it’s at the top of this page. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/88 "2010-07-22T08:19:08Z")
> [@SyuRi](#): > > Because we’re led to believe by science that reality is someway, while it could be someway else. Actually, science doesn’t do that, or at least less so than any other way of viewing the world I can think of; all it says is: “This is the currently best working model, subject to revision as new data comes in. Use at own risk.” If that’s too dogmatic for you (or your friend) then well, come up with an alternative. ---
**Author:** ![SyuRi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SyuRi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SyuRi)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/89 "2010-07-22T11:14:25Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > I dunno. Did you read the link I referred you to? It’s a lot shorter and more readable. If you’re really lazy: it’s at the top of this page. Yes, i did, thanks for the share, but i already agreed with that position, my friend doesn’t though. He believes not everything can fit in that description, in the way some theories are indeed proved wrong, like the from the earth that was plain to when the earth was spherical, and because of that, and because science is basing its works on assumptions its not able to prove, we can’t trust science with any reliable knowledge about what reality is, since it could be wrong at any time. I’m lacking some arguments aggainst that position, because to me it seems a bit hypocrhitical, how we can’t know anything about reality when we’re using technology that only works because of our - small or not - understanding of it. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/90 "2010-07-22T13:05:35Z")
Well posters here have explained to you how science actually works and what science actually does. Your friend seems to be uninterested in doing more than spouting off his “Don’t trust the science!” claptrap. You’ve invited me here to engage with others and he has declined. Honestly I wouldn’t bother engaging with him any more and won’t by proxy either. If _you_ have points to make or points that you want clarified, for your own sake, fine … but you have been given very clear and cogent arguments against his apparent position, if those are not good enough for him and you then I certainly have little more to add. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/91 "2010-07-22T13:34:24Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers > > The Op’s friend and those with similar attitude need to read Asimov’s The Relativity of Wrong. > > Good suggestion. [Here it is](http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm). It’s a short read. That is great! I am pretty sure I read that ages ago. During my science drought in a dumb Catholic grade school I got hooked on science fiction in 4t grade. Sci-fi from the 50s and 60s has a more SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE than most of the junk called science fiction today. The ideas of science and the scientific method are woveninto the stories even though there is oftenmale chauvinism woven in also. 😃 But for me science fiction made science more interesting than the science teachers did even when I got them in high school. psik ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/92 "2010-07-22T14:50:37Z")
The Ethical Engineer, by Harry Harrison [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30964/30964-h/30964-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30964/30964-h/30964-h.htm) psik ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/93 "2010-07-24T17:07:41Z")
Without necessarily endorsing the position, allow me to access my globalism for a thought from a different culture. From [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabda): > [@](#): > > Katyayana stated that shabda “speech” is eternal (nitya), as is artha “meaning”, and their mutual relation. According to Patanjali, sphoṭa (“meaning”) is not identical with shabda, but rather its permanent aspect, while dhvani “sound, acoustics” is its ephemeral aspect. Science- as in hard science, physics and chemistry- don’t very obviously talk about reality on this level. Science is more of an acoustical effect, the ‘bouncing off of things’. It doesn’t make predictions like this: > [@](#): > > Esoterically, Shabd is the “Sound Current vibrating in all creation. It can be heard by the inner ears.” [1] Variously referred to as the Audible Life Stream, Inner Sound, Sound Current or Word in English, the Shabd is the esoteric essence of God which is available to all human beings So, are you asking if there is a more fundamental religious meaning to ‘reality’, and whether science accurately describes this? Well no, science != religion. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/94 "2010-07-24T19:02:17Z")
> [@SyuRi](#): > > Given that we think therefore we exist _Le cogito_ is a tautological error. Premise: I think. Conclusion: I am. You can’t posit “I” in the premise of a proof to prove that thing’s existence. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![SyuRi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SyuRi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SyuRi)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/95 "2010-07-25T10:33:51Z")
Apologies accepted. Anyway, here’s a video very much related to this discussion that i stumbled upon, that is on the side that science cannot describe reality accurately. Thought i might share :). [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/4dpRPTwsKJs/hqdefault.jpg "The Quantum Apocalypse of The Holographic Universe") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpRPTwsKJs) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/96 "2010-07-25T20:55:09Z")
> [@SyuRi](#): > > Apologies accepted. > > Anyway, here’s a video very much related to this discussion that i stumbled upon, that is on the side that science cannot describe reality accurately. Thought i might share :). > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpRPTwsKJs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpRPTwsKJs) And I should share what me and skeptics have pointed before: > **[Quantum Quackery | Skeptical Inquirer](https://skepticalinquirer.org/1997/01/quantum-quackery/)** > [@](#): > > Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts. > > However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations. > > The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle’s appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light. > > No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity. Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function.\*\* Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Yumblie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/76d3ee/32.png) [@Yumblie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yumblie)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/97 "2010-07-25T22:16:38Z")
It’s annoying when people declare that there are questions that science cannot answer, as if science is some bizarre complicated ritual that is limited in scope. It’s a sad state of affairs how many people have no idea what science really is and therefore mistrust it. You touch a flame. It’s hot. Therefore, you don’t touch it again, because you’ve learned that it’s hot, and that if you were to touch it again, you would burn yourself again. Congratulations, you’ve just done science. Science is simply observing the world, doing experiments, and coming up with a model to try and make predictions. If the next day, you see fire again, you probably won’t want to touch it again. In your scientific model, you’ve concluded that because the flame you touched yesterday was hot, therefore all flames must be hot. Does it “describe reality”? Who cares? All you care about is not burning yourself. There’s a lot to be said about raising doubt toward specific subfields of science. But doubting science itself is doubting all logic and common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/98 "2010-07-25T22:39:52Z")
> [@Yumblie](#): > > It’s annoying when people declare that there are questions that science cannot answer Really? You think science is the answer to _everything?_ That is a really odd notion that most scientists would not even agree with. That level of scientific optimism enjoyed some brief popularity among 19th century academics, but never really before or after then. I’m in a boat with my two kids. They fall off opposite sides of the boat at the same time, and I’m only able to save one of them. Now do science and tell me which one I should save. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/99 "2010-07-25T22:47:52Z")
Cisco, I can’t speak for **Yumblie** , but I think you completely missed his point. BRB with something hairy that I’m concocting. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966/100 "2010-07-25T22:51:16Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > Cisco, I can’t speak for **Yumblie** , but I think you completely missed his point. > > BRB with something hairy that I’m concocting. What is at all ambiguous about the very first sentence of his post? If he meant something other than “science is unlimited in scope, and can answer every question” then he sure did a poor job of phrasing it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-or-does-science-accurately-describe-our-reality/546966.md?page=6)