Credit: iStockphoto
In theory, science is a failure. In practice, it works; in product, it soars. Yet because scientific product depends on practice, which in turn depends on theory, it is vital that scientists understand how and why science fails.
Science has a long, rich history that practising scientists often overlook. Modern scientists proudly herald the enterprise of science as logical (reasoned), yet since science's earliest stirrings more than 2,000 years ago, various thinkers have maintained this logic is flawed.
Even so, it wasn't until 1739 that Scottish thinker David Hume drove the point home by specifying that modern science is inherently illogical, because it relies in part on assumed theories that must reach beyond what we can ever observe.
This has profound implications: the very foundations of science are infirm. Yet, understandably, in his day Hume's concern fell largely on deaf ears of those more interested in reaping rewards of practical science at the birth of the industrial revolution.
It wasn't until the mid to late-20th century that science historians Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend looked back across 400 years of astonishing scientific achievement to conclude that it was precisely the theoretical shortcomings of science that forced scientists to be more liberal in practice.
They proposed that Copernicus and Galileo, for example, boldly stepped outside the limits of logic to garner support for their theories within the science community.
Such activities imply an inherently social aspect to science, although the degree to which "opposing communities of scientists" drive theory change remains contentious. But, at least, such work shows that science does not simply equate with reason.
Today, practising scientists may dismiss these issues as unimportant, but this is a sheer mistake.
The standard view is that science's problems may be generalised thus: we can never be 100 per cent sure in truth, even of scientific theories, because of the limits imposed by our human observations of the world.
Yet if we give this fundamental problem credence, our pursuit of scientific "truth" becomes challenging indeed. Most science practitioners conclude that paying anything more than lip service to Hume's problem is futile, a stymie to progressing knowledge.
More controversially, if we push the notion of a "social" aspect to science championed by Kuhn and Feyerabend to its limit, we may view every scientist as inherently subjective, plying any given scientific theory only via their private world.
We then have cause to wonder: if each person has his or her own valid mode of doing science, could there be as many methods of science as there are scientists?
For many modern thinkers both in and out of science, this goes too far. Yet in any case, for practical reasons it surely will not do, since science is a public pursuit needing a unified approach.
But why must we settle for the naive objective dogma championed by some scientists that runs counter to a view of smug, subjective impracticality expressed by certain science critics? Both extremes are perilous. Instead, why don't we explore the oft-ignored middle ground?
No matter how we try, we cannot be truly objective as science so sternly demands because we cannot escape our frailty as human navigators piloting the helm of scientific exploration. The scientific approach we use today is arbitrary, albeit steeped in history, and since it is also flawed, we must find out if there is a better one. Science works, but if we don't know how, can we ever hope to improve it?
Science is often only theory
In our search for knowledge we risk proclaiming theories as fact and then lock ourselves into processes and thoughts that seek to prove our theories. We proclaim to be knowledgeable about many things but in reality the things we proclaim now as fact are more than likely partial aspects of the truth. How can we believe that we understand the whole truth about evolution from the limited fragments that we are able to observe in our world. How can we proclaim we understand about the evolution of the universe through the limited fragments of the universe that we are able to observe in the here and now from our part of the universe. How can we proclaim we understand about global warming when we only understand a limited fragment of climate throughout the history of the earth. Science is the beginning of understanding and can utilise theory to help us understand the world around us but to proclaim we understand more than that from partial glimpses of our world and our universe seems short sighted and entirely illogical. I applaud all who seek to understand our world and our universe but theory needs to be stated and taught as theory until we are in a better position to understand it as being fact. Too often we proclaim theory as knowledge and promote this is the only way to understand our world and universe, when we only think we know. Some of our current theories will in the future appear as absurd as the world being flat but at present we continue the age old problem of thinking we are more knowledgeable than we really are and trying to change our world to fit an ideal which may or may not be the truth.....
Wake up call for science
I agree with Baker's article on the most part, but I do not think that ALL of science is still theory. But I do think that the lack of "proof" is one of the reasons that enables some religious people to say that science is wrong. I recently flicked through a magazine called "Creation" that basically contained nothing but articles attacking science and scientific thinking. And I could see that some of the articles would make sense and be proof positive of the religious argument to a non-science person. I truly believe that a lot of this lies in the fact that there are science people and non-science people. I have many non-science friends, and for most of them, the simplest scientific notions are just unintelligible, and these are otherwise intellegent people. Maybe, as has been found with maths and language, there are different parts of the brain that "specialise" in science, art, religon etc. Or maybe belief in the unproved aspects of science is taken on blind faith, much like religon.
Blind faith or Blind Reasoning
Blind Reasoning. Has this been defined. Hunches, intuition possibilities that do exist yet there is no proof and one only needs to search for the viable evidence that something does exist. And.... since everything is dependent on everything else in this universe, what other valuable piece of information are we missing that would tell us something new and differernt about our galaxy, perhaps our inner being. Hooray to the thinker that has always been way "Outside the Box."
Reasoning need not be blind
To propagate consequences of known and verified facts through the operations of known and verified theories can, if no mistakes are made, arrive at new conclusions which are known in advance to be true. I am a physicist so I have the luxury of having done this on occasion and then participated in experimental programs to test the new conclusions. The key is to set up a properly defined propagator and to have knowledge of the accuracy of the terms in the propagation and the values of the known facts used as a starting point.
In more concretely mathematical language, if a starting point may be represented by a set of numbers and a process by a matrix or tensor operation then repetitive action of the operation can predict a history from that starting point.
To be more sensible, given the location and velocity vectors of a moon lander, and equations of the influences upon its motion, its future path is known. So, I say, that subject to error propagation limitations, reasoning need not be blind.
An attack on science?
The Creation Magazine does not attack science, in fact it promotes good science and many of the articles are written by scientists. The fact the many scientists doubt Darwin’s hypothesis (which seems to be generally accepted as science) and point out its scientific inaccuracies doesn’t mean they are attacking science as you claim they do. ‘Creation’ is written with the general public in mind so for science minded people the ‘Journal of Creation’ is a good place to read more in-depth discussions of the subject. By the way, I suggest that you do a bit more than a ‘flick’ through material before you criticise it. www.creation.com
Wake up call for science
Suely it is when we deal with assumed theory as fact, we are really in trouble. Our "assumed" theory is what gives us the impetus to look further, and in looking further we discover more about our world and life. Science takes us in many exciting directions and challenges us in what we see in our world. May we be like Darwin seeking to understand and yet walking in faith, understanding that we will not know it all, but each step is one further on the journey.
Wake up call for religion
"Surely it is when we deal with assumed theory as fact, we are really in trouble."
Well then apparently religion is in over its head, as many people don't hold it as a belief, but a fact. Although of course you could argue that it has been since it's inception by man, especially as people today seem to become somewhat more logical and discover all the discrepancies that religion has to offer.
Scientist need a philosophy lesson from Donald Rumsfeld
The question Andrew Barker asks about science can only be answered by philosophy. It relates mainly to the branches in metaphysics known as ontology and epistemology. Ontology questions what exists and what can be said to exist. for example the confused states in the realm of quantum mechanics can be seen as an ontological question. Perhaps I could paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld in answering it by saying, 'what we see as the situation is really the known knowns and the known unknowns.' This statement is not only illogical, it's oxymoronic. Werner Heisenberg's idea when defining the uncertainty principle, with relation to quantum mechanics, was very a very Platonic one.
He said,'What we observe is not nature, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.' Is this the same as saying that the sound of a tree falling in a forest is only heard if someone is around to hear it?
Sometimes physical questions can not be answered through physical experience. Take Einstein famous thought experiment concerning the speed of light. He asked himself if he was travelling at the speed of light with a mirror held in front of him would he see his reflection in that mirror? Only by creating this theoretical state of impossibility could Einstein obtain an answer relating to the nature of the universe. Rumsfeld would call this idea an unknown known', when what we know, we know from what we could not not know.
Andrew also wants to ask the question of how we know? and this is where epistemology comes into the equation. How do we know? or how do we know we know? right know I am typing and right know you are reading but can you tell me how humans came to communicate the communications we are communicating? We know that we evolved to communicate; however we have no idea how. This is as Rumsfeld put it, 'A known unknown,' when what we know we know, is what we do not know.
The question of how we know is not as important as the question why should we know? what value is knowledge when it has the power to destroy the knower? Perhaps if Robert Oppenheimer read Mary Shelly's novel Frankenstein when he was growing up the world would not be the situation it is in today, trying not to know a known known, which is impossible.
Donald makes some good points
Concerning the known unknowns and unknown knowns is it possible to unknow something you know?
Rumsfeld replies
Einstein's unknown known and the known unknown of quantum mechanics shows us that we can know something without having direct knowledge of it. This goes against empiricism, and the history of knowledge.
Is it possible unknow something you know? Perhaps you can doublethink like in George Orwell's book 1984. Some other ways of escaping knowledge are ignorance,insanity and death.