When you say “That’s a brick wall!” you’re actually making a set of predictions about the outcomes of certain actions. If you throw a ball in a particular direction it will bounce back. It you swing your fist hard enough in a particular direction you’ll break your knuckles. Calling a thing “a brick wall” doesn’t tell you anything about what the thing really, truly IS. Rather it’s a prediction of how reality will operate within a particular localized region.
This epistemological stance is particularly useful because it helps us to avoid the problems of essentialism. If we believe that the true essence of a thing is knowable, then it’s only a short step to believe that it’s KNOWN. And that our current provisional theory is really an absolute truth. It’s a characteristic of magical and theological thinking that leads to inflexibility and error.
The first assumption is that there is something “that exists independent from anyone or anything’s perception of it” and that it is in some way describable. You can’t describe it unless you assume it exists. So indeed your friend is right, without making some assumptions science is pretty worthless.
Once that assumption is made the question is: what form of knowing is likely to come closest to a correct description? Science is all about also assuming that our current description is imperfect and trying to improve upon it by a process of testing predictions and making new and more accurate models (poetic metaphors if you will) of reality, in all its manifold manifestations.
Given that it accepts, axiomatically, that it is an imperfect description, that it is always a work in progress, it will never fully describe reality. Like the old saying about democracy, it is the worst possible form of knowing about reality there is … except for all the others.
Science is the best way for our culture to describe reality right now. Just like the Judeo-Christian religions were the best way to describe reality to certain cultures at one point, the Olympic gods were the best way to describe reality to another culture at one point, and so on. In 500 years, there will be prominent theories that make even our leading minds seem as ignorant as we tend to think of people from 500 years ago as being. Just as Dawkins admires Darwin, but acknowledges that he was wrong in most details, some future biologist will admire Dawkins, but acknowledge that he was wrong in most details. Certain very basic tenets will remain; the laws of thermodynamics will likely hold, as "do unto others . . . " has and likely will continue to hold.
Actually, you don’t even need to assume that reality has an independent existence. Even if I make the solipsistic assumption that reality is purely an hallucination, I can still observe that the hallucination responds in consistent ways to my imaginary attempts to interact with it.
There may not REALLY be a brick wall in front of me, but if my “brick wall theory” provides consistent predictions about the outcomes of my actions, who cares? One advantage of this particular epistemology is that it eliminates the problem of solipsism.
I think, therefore I am. And I do, therefore I know.
Are you by this saying that another methodology might one day replace what we call science?
As I understand it science is not much more than testing different hypothesis qnd also making predictions. Either it stands or its disproved. Science at it barest doesnt have any attitude and no politics. Its rather a search to resolve the question marks. Comparing this with religion sounds wishy-washy. This kind of thinking is not looking try anything out or explain anything. Rather put dogma as an explanation to thing which were not understood. Far far away from religion.
Im curious, could any other methodology replace science (Im not saying that science is the ONLY way of course). If so, are there any theories on other approaches to nature that could compete with science? With our limited senses this seem like a hard sell. Do you mean, that in theory a new dogma could replace science?
That’s actually a good point. And my answer is . . . probably not. But maybe. I think science will evolve to the point that most of the scientific knowledge we have today turns out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or wrong. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the methods to acquire knowledge will change beyond recognition.
Edit: So when I said science, perhaps I should have said the current state of science, as the state can change a great deal without the framework changing much (though I do think there will be some framework changes, that’s a topic for another thread.)
That’s true, essentially, but unfortunately it only exists through a medium (humankind) with a great deal of attitude and politics, as well as fallibility, rounding errors, misinterpretations, personal and corporate agendas, and all sorts of other shortcomings.
Not true at all; Christianity and the other religions weren’t ever the best ways to describe reality. They were and are simply fantasies.
The “best way to describe reality” back then would have been collected and empirical knowledge. Never religion, not at any point in history, because religion is simply a collection of fantasy.
Right. Science is not married to its current state, it assumes that its current state does not have it right yet and probably never will (even if it is closer to right than any other method of knowing can offer). The models will change but the method remains.
Interesting comparison to fantasy, with profound implications for those cases where it is indeed true. Reminds me of something Ursula K. Le Guin said:
“At this point, realism is perhaps the least adequate means of understanding or portraying the incredible realities of our existence. A scientist who creates a monster in his laboratory; a librarian in the library of Babel; a wizard unable to cast a spell; a spaceship having trouble in getting to Alpha Centauri: all these may be precise and profound metaphors of the human condition. The fantasist, whether he uses the ancient archetypes of myth and legend or the younger ones of science and technology, may be talking as seriously as any sociologist - and a good deal more directly - about human life as it is lived, and as it might be lived, and as it ought to be lived.”
Accepting as truism that fantasy cannot reveal truth about our reality as human beings is just close-minded and dogmatic. It’s no more enlightened than the steadfast faith of a bishop or an imam.
Well, there are certainly conditions under which science can accurately describe reality – for instance, if reality (whatever that might mean, exactly) is computable, i.e. can be simulated Matrix-style, it is scientifically describable, since computers themselves are completely scientifically describable. So it’s at least possible for science to describe reality. If it’s necessarily the case that this must be so, however, I don’t know, and likely never will; from this point of view, though, it strikes me as absurd to take the stance that science is incapable of describing reality, even though it can never be positively ruled out – not only does it assume facts not in evidence, but it also leads to a proliferation of ontologies, each of which stands on equal grounds with one another, and none of which has any observable consequences, as every aspect of reality ‘beyond’ what might be scientifically describable about reality must be consistent with this scientific description (since otherwise it would be possible to rule it out scientifically), and thus, there is no way to choose one over the other. As it stands, I’d rather take a shot at describing the world scientifically.
However, one shouldn’t confuse having a ‘Theory of Everything’ with actually knowing everything – the latter doesn’t seem possible even in the most optimistic case, as even if you have knowledge of every fact in the universe, you can’t know that you in fact know everything; there might always be something you have missed. The best one can do is asymptotically approach that certainty, but never reaching it in any finite amount of time.
I’m actually not too sure about that. Sure, the reason for an atom’s decay is its instability, however, the way quantum mechanics is most commonly interpreted, there is no reason for it to decay at precisely the time that it does; yet, a scientific description – albeit a probabilistic one – of the process is possible nevertheless.
Don’t be silly. Fantasy by definition is always wrong. That’s the whole point. If someone writes a story that truthfully speaks about something, then that part of the story isn’t fantasy.
Religion is false. That’s the point. Religion cannot accurately describe the world because if it does, it is no longer religion. The function of religion is being wrong, but being able to insist that everyone pretend you are right.
Interesting point, but I still think the idea applies at least broadly. We may not know the reason something happens at the exact moment it does, but if we thought atoms decayed for no reason or bodies fell to earth for no reason, I don’t think scientific study would be possible.
To be sure, you can interpret quantum mechanics like that, but in any interpretation in which an actual collapse of the wave function occurs, the state it ends up in is selected irreducibly at random, i.e. it’s not just that we don’t know of a reason for the state selection, there actually is none, in a way similar to how there is not both a sharply defined value for both position and momentum of a quantum particle – again, it’s not just our ignorance that keeps the ‘true values’ hidden from our knowledge, there are no true values; that information simply doesn’t exist.
Our assumptions are based on repeatable experimentation and observation. Issac newton didn’t understand relativity when he created his laws of motion. Einstein later built on those laws when he realized that they didn’t account for objects moving very fast. Even if we discover something new about reality, our new model must still account for what has already been observed.
If reality includes moral and ethical truths (and I believe it does), then science’s metaphors are less useful than the metaphors contained within societies’ mythologies. The problem is when societies, or segments thereof, accept those stories not as metaphors/models trying to understand the human condition as much as science is about making metaphors/models that describe reality, but as literal facts that are revealed truth and that must be accepted as fact unquestioningly in whole cloth.
Ursula is a wonderful person, and I’ve been lucky enough to converse with her many times over the years, usually over a cup of tea in the Green Room at Orycon, but you must remember that she sells fantasy for a living.
Yes, happy thoughts about the Ideal gas law will not get your rocketship to Proxima Centauri. Someone has to do the math, the engineering, and construct something that works in the real world. Telepathic dragon riding is not a real option in this universe.
Since our eyes and our sense organs evolved to specific conditions here on earth, I have always thought our observations are limited to what we evolved to be able to see. Take the wide field camera we use in space. We would never have been able to view certain space phenomena with our own eyes, so it took science to discover a new way of accurately describing the reality around us. While impressive, I think it naive to believe there are no “unknown unknowns” that our science does not and cannot describe, simply because we do not have the physiological tools.
