Quote:
Originally Posted by Len Moran
I agree, except that such a stance throws into question the degree to which we think our models match the absolute. You quite often hear comments that suggest our models are asymptote in nature - they continually approach the absolute but never reach it, but if we have no conception of what mind independent reality is then we have no means in which to ever make a scientific judgement as to how close or distant our models are, the judgement is philosophical in nature.
|
Classical Newtonian mechanics could explain the motions of the planets in broad terms, but it could not explain in full detail (the error was small) the precession of Mercury's orbit. Along came relativity, which can easily account for Mercury's precession.
I would say that the theory which explains the most observations is objectively better than the one which explains fewer observations. Does this make it closer to reality? Not necessarily, in principle: it could be that the ultimate reality is completely different from what we observe. But in practice I would say we generally assume that there is an intimate connection between our sensory data and reality, and that therefore a theory which explains more observations is closer to reality. And by "we" I don't just mean scientists -- all human beings reason in this way about most things in their lives. Which is quite sensible, because at the end of the day it's the sensory input we have to deal with, not the inaccessible ultimate reality. At least in this world.