What if I told you that everything you learned in science might not be true? Well, it might not be, and that is true. By now you surely know how much I hate setting limits, but here a limit exists. The laws of science cannot be proven true.
The problem lies in how logic works. Here are two notable things. One: statements that have never been proven false are not therefore true, otherwise it would be a true statement that I'm the smartest person in the world (just kidding). Two: the fact that one explanation works and all other known explanations do not does not make the one that works true. That would be similar to saying that problems that cannot be answered today will never be answered. The fact that no one can provide an alternate explanation does not mean that the only supported explanation is true, just as the fact that no one can solve a problem does not mean that the problem cannot be solved. Now, how does this apply to science in general?
Say you want to prove to me that gravity is true. You drop an object and say, "See, it fell with an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second," and I say, "Well that's not enough, what about that object over there?" and you drop that and I say, "Well what about that other object over there?" and it shouldn't take you long to realize that I could ask this question for every piece of matter in the universe, and for good reason. You can't prove something is true by examples unless you can make an example of everything in the universe. Now that doesn't mean yet that you can't prove that gravity is true. All you have to do is tell me why it's true. So, why does gravity exist? You might go on some long explanation of general relativity and space-time, but if you do, your whole proof of gravity being true relies on the theories of general relativity and space-time being true. So why is general relativity true? I doubt you'll be able to show me by example that all the space-time in the entire universe bends around matter and causes movement in time to be movement in space and so on, so you'll have to answer why. And even if you have an answer, it shouldn't take you long to realize that I could ask this question for every answer you could possibly give. "Why is that true?" At some point you would have to admit that you don't know. Maybe those kids who keep on saying, "But why?" are being more logical than one might expect.
In mathematics, the system is defined. The rules are defined. The terms are defined. When these things are taken to be true, then many other also true statements can be derived, and we know these must be true because we know how the system works. We designed the system. This is not the case in science. In science, one attempts to go from the observations inside the system to the general rules that govern the system (and then take these general rules and create more explanations that are true when these rules are taken to be true). However, you can't prove the rules from observations unless, as I said above, you can observe every single possible thing referred to by the rule, and show that the rule holds for every single possible thing. So, without proof, common sense says to take the explanation that is most likely. Or, most likely and most useful, perhaps.
There are always alternate explanations. You can come up with an infinite number of explanations, explanations that cannot be proven false, even, for everything. Let's go back to gravity. Here's one alternate explanation: things don't move according to some rule like gravity, they just move randomly at all times at any speed and in any direction. You can't prove that wrong from experiments, because I can always say, "Well, that was just random chance that it happened to occur as you predicted." But you say, "Well that's so unlikely that it's unreasonable." Okay, well how about this: my new theory is that gravity is correct as everyone believes, only, in every area of space of a certain size, there's a 1/[googleplex^(googleplex^googleplex)] percent chance that a "Daniel moment" will occur and the force of gravity in this space will be reversed for a short amount of time. My new theory is essentially as well supported by the evidence as the original, because the chance of this Daniel moment is so small that it's never expected to be observed. So this theory's got to be right, right? Or for a reasonable sounding one: this attractive force is actually fluctuating in all atoms over time, only at a very slow rate, but in a few trillion years there will be a measurable increase in the force of gravity on earth. So, you won't be able to prove me wrong for a few trillion years.
The point is, there are an infinite number of explanations out there, none of which can be proven false, none of which can be proven true. This is why you must consider the evidence and consider the usefulness. There's no reason to quit your physics class as the fundamental physical laws have for strong evidence supporting them and also very many practical applications.
So, you say, "Well why do you think this is a worthwhile topic to bring up then?" and it's because people forget this. Things that haven't been proven false aren't necessarily true. And there are plenty of theories that are much less supported than the laws of gravity that some people just assume to be true. And I don't just mean strange heretical beliefs, or even something more common such as creationism. In active areas of research, people will often be quick to jump to conclusions. This new theory is true. This is how it all actually works. In other areas, people will often stand by old established theories even when new data goes against them. This is why I say: science is not true because it has yet to be proven false. And it's certainly not true because a lot of people believe it, or because you want it to be true. If new data appears that contradicts a scientific theory, will you factor in the new data and choose the most likely theory accordingly? Or will you be one of the people who would have denied that the world could be round, or that the sun could be at the center of the solar system? You say that's old, but look up how geology progressed into the theory of continental drift (or go somewhere like here). Unwavering acceptance of any theory is a hindrance to progress in science.
No comments:
Post a Comment