Lost marbles (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, October 25, 2009, 00:48 (5508 days ago) @ dhw

I agree with you, however, that all models, or current "truths" (in inverted commas), are contingent and temporary, and I agree with George that some are more contingent and temporary than others. For instance, I think the vast majority of us would be surprised if we were told that the sun revolved round the Earth. Maybe fewer people would be surprised if some aspects of Darwin's Theory of Evolution were found to be faulty. As you rightly said: "The process of truth and how it relates to science is another process of relativism." But you also wrote: "Accepting that science isn't about truth resolves most of your issues you raised in this post." I'm afraid it would resolve none of the issues. I wrote: "I wonder which of our scientific "truths" [in inverted commas] will still be valid a thousand years from now." Perhaps you would prefer it if I wondered which of our scientific models will still be regarded as "verified" (in inverted commas) a thousand years from now, but what's the difference?-You essentially stated the answer in your own paragraph here. -I posit a model. It fits with the evidence. Is it true? We don't know. We know it fits. We know we can use it to make precise predictions. But the model itself carries no "truth." It is an abstraction of human language. Abstractions approximate, by nature, to general classes of things. The point-model of physics is a prime example: we know that electrons aren't points in space, yet the only model we can use to make sense of them for the (average, non-mathematical person) is the point-model. We take certain "truths" from science a little too out of hand. Using your own example, dhw, seven hundred years ago, you also would have gone outside and told your son, with complete conviction, that the sun traveled around the earth. There would be no question. -When we say something is true in science, it is true according to the model we're using. It is the best available explanation. Insomuch as we can be sure, it is true--but this again is the recreation of a "very likely maybe." To grab an old cliche--there's more than one way to skin a cat. -I'm not saying we should lord a paralyzing skepticism over our heads, only that we should be more skeptical. (Though dhw, you firmly take the cake in skepticism; you're probably the most skeptical person I've ever met!) -Part of where my problem comes in, is that induction has never been proven right. (Or wrong.) We know it works but can't explain why. It doesn't follow the same rules as deduction. This is similar to the creationist argument that says "because science can't prove itself, it must be rejected." However, the problem of induction is still a very open question in the study of logic. -It turns out that the practical benefits of science (it works without needing to know why) outweigh the negative arguments against induction. And yes, I DO realize that I'm playing the cantankerous mathematician... but hasn't that been a common hat for me since I came here?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"