posted
Okay I'm going to post this topic here for the fun of it. This was kinda pointed out to me in Hubbards "Mission Earth" dekology. Is science as we know true? All of our mathamatics, WE came up with. So what happens if aliens come along and disprove everything we been doing all these years? The only reason why this is not so is because our math and physics works.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science doesn't have to be true. It just has to be useful.
Take Newtonian physics which we have known for hundreds of years, and which are still taught in basic physics courses. Are they true? No. It appears as though relativistic physics is more true.
But we still use Newtonian physics all the time. Why? Because the relativistic effects at slow speeds (a few hundred miles per hour is still slow for this discussion) are almost always inconsequential.
Of course, there are a few situations where we really have to be careful with the relativistic affects. The GPS satalites for example.
So if some aliens came and told us it was all false, we'd see what they had to offer. We'd probably use their new stuff where it was useful to do so, and use the old stuff where it was useful to do that.
Of course, I say this all as an engineer, not a scientist.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Newtonian physics got us to the moon. Bottom line: if it works, we can worry about truth later. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
An engineer would say that it's true enough.
On day, a mathematician and an engineer are taken to the university football field. They are put on one end of the field, and a $100 bill is put on the other end.
They are told that they can have the money if they ever reach it. The only trick is that they have to move in steps. Each step, they are only allowed to move half of the distance between themself and the bill.
The mathematician throws up his hands in frustration. It's impossible! You can't reach the other side in a finite amount of time! This is idiotic!
The engineer, on the other hand, says "I'll take that challenge." The mathematician says "Don't you know that you'll never make it to the other side?" The engineer replies "Maybe so, but I'll get close enough to take the money." Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Is it not true when theory matches with experiment?
Not necessarily. Many experiments match Newtonian physics extremely well. AFAIK, they didn't derive any expriments where it didn't work until they already had the theory of relativity, and they knew where it would diverge from Newtonian physics.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah that is what I kind of figured. However if an alien race comes by with far mor advanced technologies we may not like the result.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did the natives of the Americas like it when the Europeans came with their superior technology? Some took advantage of it and were thankful for it. Many did not like the changes that it created. I imagine it would be the same.
And if they do come, I call dibs on the job of "Shepherd". Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is why I prefer science over everything else. (I know it borders over scientism but I don't care), like think about it the scientific method is to question eevrything and to experiment via hypothesis, if the experiment is proven wrong so what? Just wait 10 years when tools improve do it again and wow! Success!
posted
Yes, i know a lot of science has been proven wrong, but proven wrong by a "newer" version of science that works or works better than the previous science.
posted
Science is never true. Truth is beyond the epistemological (Ok, I just wanted to use that word) scope of science. The aim of science is not to obtain truth, but rather to obtain confidence in hypotheses. These hypotheses are never proven true. We merely gain confidence in their predictibility based on our inability to prove them wrong.
Also, I've always considered it a mistake to conflate the products of science (i.e. the currently held and supported theories and the engineering applications resulting from experimentation) with the scientific process. They are two (or three depending on how you look at it) very different things. And that's leaving aside many people's inability to separate the trappings of science (e.g. lab coats, math, machines that go bing) with what is actually science (the majority of which happens outside of the lab).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I provisionally agree with Squick (OK, I have to look up epistimolgical for the nth time.) I just read a good definition of truth: Truth is deed. Vico came up with it.
quote: Many experiments match Newtonian physics extremely well. AFAIK, they didn't derive any expriments where it didn't work until they already had the theory of relativity
Not true. The miniscule precession of Mercury's perhelion (43 arc seconds per century, I think) was known as far back as 1845. Newtonian dynamics couldn't account for this, though many tried, and it wasn't accounted for until Einstein.. One idea was that there was an unseen (as it turns out nonexistant ) planet, Vulcan, between Mercury and the Sun. I am just amazes that astronomers could detect such a tiny variation so long ago.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always been under the impression that "science" was a method more than a body of information. Hence, it cannot be "true" or "false". It can only "work" or "not work".
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well when you think about it, even if out mathematics and theories on science were wrong, there is noone as of right now in our galaxy to point this out to us. So I guess were just stuck doing the wrong thing, unless of course were right, then we have nothing to worry about...
posted
If we start positing usefulness as an end, science for the sake of science, or usefulness for the sake of usefulness, it seems like an impoverished enterprise.
Where is virtue in usefulness? You know, why is it good?
posted
Usefulness by definition cannot be for its own sake. Usefulness is always a means. Pointing out that it has no virtue in itself is, well, pointless.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If man doesn't greatly reduce or completely eliminate the burning of fossil fuel, I believe that in the not too distant future, the world will experience the first of two global earthquakes. The first global quake will probably level every major city on earth and take millions of lives. The second global quake (much bigger than the first) will take out over 95% of the human race!! Included amongst these victims will be men who for many years have secretly been trying to reduce the Earth's population by several BILLION. Their plan is to reduce to about five-hundred million total the number of people that occupy this planet by using poisons, bacteria and nuclear war to accomplish this.
One of many wacky predictions from the above link. Dharma, he seems like a crank, I'm sad to say.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
