Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich
The burden is not on me to show that science produces a model that may or may not correspond to some actual that forever lies inaccessible.
|
No one needs to show it, for it is obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich
Speaking of science as if it were in a model/absolute framework, however, follows the same pattern of the picture metaphor in which we draw an analogy for what we say or claim to a picture or painting of an object. The metaphor is fine, but in philosophical discussions I think you can resolve some issues by noting the figurative aspects of the language. We don't have to seriously worry if our theories are literally asymptotically approaching some absolute or not if that is just a figure of speech.
|
Oh, I disagree that it's just a figure of speech. It's an image that illustrates three important facts about science:
1) Scientific knowledge is not the same as truth. If it were, we wouldn't need to revise it and correct it all the time.
2) Scientific theories should be regarded as simplifications of and approximations to the data on which they're based. They are never identical to the data. Therefore, we should not be surprised when they fail to describe the data with 100% accuracy.
3) I noted above that scientific knowledge is permanently subject to revision. But how do scientists determine when it should be revised, what should be revised, and how it should be revised? The answer is that scientific theories do not exist in a vacuum. They are not self-justifying (another reason why they are not the same as truth). There are
standards in science that good theories must meet. One such standard is that the theory must be reasonably compatible with observation (though perhaps not with 100% accuracy, as I noted in the previous point).
Each of these three facts shows that there are important
dualities in science. Truth on one side, science on the other. The complexity of the data on one side, the simplifications of science on the other. Observation on one side, theory on the other. This is why it makes perfect sense to describe science and scientific theories as models of something else (it doesn't matter that we can't access that something else directly).
Some people may feel uneasy about these dualities. They may long for a simpler, more holistic image, where science is not subject to the flawed judgement of the scientists, but merely proceeds forward with a life of its own, impartial and unhindered, gathering more and more itty bitty little facts until it becomes one with the truth -- like a shopping cart at a supermarket.
The shopping-cart image of science has the appeal of giving the impression that
science can do no wrong. Scientists never make any mistakes; they just need further data, sometimes. It's a more comfortable position. But isn't it interesting that many people formed in the hard sciences, such as Ken G, will instinctively reject the shopping-cart view of science?
I would say more: it's telling. Because the shopping-cart image shows a deep misunderstanding of the scientific process. In reality, science is not an additive process that keeps going forward like a train firmly on its tracks, and just gobbles up more and more data. Sometimes, scientists need to throw away what came before, and go back to the drawing board.
I find the picture metaphor much more
realistic than the shopping-cart metaphor.