Is science dogmatic?
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
No again. They're approximations, not necessarily true in any absolute sense, and no thoughtful scientist would claim otherwise. The only thing any thoughtful scientist is likely to claim to be eternally and universally true is that the cosmos is consistent and comprehensible. The measure of any scientific theory's worth is, does it work? General Relativity, for instance, provides a much better (in the sense of being more accurate and predictive) explanation of gravity than do Newton's laws, but nobody uses General Relativity theory to calculate satellite orbits or spacecraft trajectories. It's immensely more complex and difficult to understand than Newton's stuff, so outfits like NASA and the European Space Agency use Newtonian physics and mathematics in all their operations. The greater accuracy of General Relativity is philosophically important, but in practical terms it's irrelevant, because the differences are so small.
i went to a lecture on why general relativity IS useful. we often hear about the fact that newton is much easier and almost perfect anyway, but there are some things that we couldnt calculate without general relatvity.
for instance, if you do some calculations you can determine what the melting point of a metal is. If you do this for mercury, but without factoring in relativistic stuff, it turns out to be a solid at room temperature.
Also gold turns out to be not-gold-coloured.
It also explains antimatter, which has been shown to exist
not that i'm arguin the philiosophy. In the lab I often use an assumption i know to be untrue simple because it seems to work. soemtimes this is my downfall but it can save a lot of work
for instance, if you do some calculations you can determine what the melting point of a metal is. If you do this for mercury, but without factoring in relativistic stuff, it turns out to be a solid at room temperature.
Also gold turns out to be not-gold-coloured.
It also explains antimatter, which has been shown to exist
not that i'm arguin the philiosophy. In the lab I often use an assumption i know to be untrue simple because it seems to work. soemtimes this is my downfall but it can save a lot of work
Thank you for your thoughtful answers.
Dexter Sinister said:
The only thing any thoughtful scientist is likely to claim to be eternally and universally true is that the cosmos is consistent and comprehensible.
While I tend to largely agree with this statement, it's still possible to wonder about its validity. Is the cosmos truly consistent? Would the laws of Newton as we use them and understand them work for any place in the cosmos? (what about black holes?) What about the principles of relativity?
I admit I have a limited understanding of Einstein's relativity theory but my point here is that we test and use our theories in such a small portion of the cosmos/universe that maybe we are wrong to assume that the cosmos is consistent.
What about consistency through time? Would it be crazy to consider the possibility that the universe might one day reach a critical turning point in which physical laws as we understand them suddenly change?
Dexter Sinister said:
The only thing any thoughtful scientist is likely to claim to be eternally and universally true is that the cosmos is consistent and comprehensible.
While I tend to largely agree with this statement, it's still possible to wonder about its validity. Is the cosmos truly consistent? Would the laws of Newton as we use them and understand them work for any place in the cosmos? (what about black holes?) What about the principles of relativity?
I admit I have a limited understanding of Einstein's relativity theory but my point here is that we test and use our theories in such a small portion of the cosmos/universe that maybe we are wrong to assume that the cosmos is consistent.
What about consistency through time? Would it be crazy to consider the possibility that the universe might one day reach a critical turning point in which physical laws as we understand them suddenly change?
s_lone said:
not entirely true. we test our theories on everything we can observe, and with radio telescopes and the like, we can see the outer "edges" of the Universe.
but yeah i get your point
_The Rise of Scientific Philosophy_ by Hans Reichenbach says that dogma has no part in science. "an uncritical faith in the presumptions of reason or a priori principles: opposed to scepticism" (f&w stand. dictionary)