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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Without necessarily endorsing the position, allow me to access my globalism for a thought from a different culture. From here:
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:
So, are you asking if there is a more fundamental religious meaning to ‘reality’, and whether science accurately describes this? Well no, science != religion.
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 :).
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.
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.
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.
