-20
Philosophy to the rescue
(lemmy.zip)
Disclaimer: we still have pragmatic reason to follow the evidence suggested by our best scientific theories. I'm just poking fun at scientists in the spirit of Hume. There's no guarantee that the future will resemble the past, and even our best scientific theories are amenable to future evidence.
Somewhat tangential, but this reminds me of an oft-cited factoid. Centuries ago, in Europe, everyone accepted the fact that all swans are white. Europeans had observed swans for years and they were, without fail, all white. There was so much overwhelming evidence that swans are white that it became obvious. Later, during the age of exploration, Europeans went to Australia and realize that not all swans are white. A single black swan flew in the face of all prior evidence (pun intended). We could say something similar about the shift from Newtonian physics to Einstein's general relativity.
I believe in following science--especially the theory of gravity if a boulder is above my head. However, people forget that science doesn't investigate the foundations of science itself. Things like causation, mathematics, and continued unchanging laws are presupposed. We humans have an incomplete picture and so have no choice but to work based on the information available, but we shouldn't forget that all we have is an approximation of reality.
“All observed swans are white” is not incompatible with the unobserved existence of a black swan.
Of course we aren’t omniscient and there’s a possibility of an anti-gravity anomaly stopping the boulder, but not standing under them is still the most rational response to the data we do have.
Well, if you don't like that example, take the actual refutation of Newtonian physics by Einstein. The point remains the same.
And if you're willing to concede our fallibility, then I think I've addressed all your concerns in the disclaimer I wrote under the meme.
Both Newtonian and Einstein’s physics suggest a boulder pushed off a cliff will fall, as far as I know. The observable data is more intrinsically valuable than the theories using them.
Fallibility isn’t something science shies away from. There’s nothing more exciting in the scientific community than when science is wrong about something.
Philosophers grandiosely proclaiming that nothing is knowable is fine, but it’s not what put a man on the moon.
We aren't even disagreeing now but you would rather argue than grasp the point. Point being, the presuppositions of science are not themselves within the purview of science. All our best theories start with axioms.
You continue to talk about the usefulness of science, which I conceded before you ever typed your first comment. At this stage, I have to assume that you're being willfully obtuse.
You said you were poking fun, I poked back. I appreciate the conversation, I enjoy thinking about these things.
I found your meme very funny as a scientist who enjoys philosophy. I will correct you though, science absolutely investigates the foundations of science itself. The average layperson sees the term “laws” and believes that science has decided this is 100% the way things work and it will never be investigated again, but science itself is very aware of how often new information invalidates old information. The way the atom has been modeled over the years is a prime example, each time scientists are presented with new data the model is changed. I was taught in my freshman year to never say a law was “proven” but to say it had “overwhelming supporting evidence” instead, because that leaves room for the possibility of evidence to the contrary. I’m not sure what you mean by causation being presupposed.
I’m not a mathematician, so I’m not sure how concrete mathematical proofs are considered, or if there is some room for interpretation/new data.
Well at least someone got a laugh. Reading your comment, it seems as though you think 1) Science can investigate its own foundations and 2) Scientists are aware that our best theories are never 100% confirmed.
I have no qualms about 2), but let's understand "the foundations of science" (which I admit is vague) as being consistent with basic axioms like A.) the immutability of mathematical truths (e.g., arithmetic), B) the ability to accurately observe/measure events in the world (quantum mechanics complicates the picture here but I also mean large-scale events), and C.) basic propositions like "every event has a cause". I do not think these sorts of questions are within the purview of science. Actually, as a philosopher, I think these questions are within the scope of philosophy.
I thoroughly enjoy philosophy and it was central to my degree in political science, but you have crazy mouth.
Please feel free to launch a vehicle outside of our solar system and tell me that Philosophy has a better understanding of the physical universe than NASA.