Science can be tested and improved, but is it the truth?
A few days ago, American astrophysicist, writer and science publisher Neil DeGrasse Tyson tweeted something that is not controversial for most scientists. “The good thing about science is that it is real, whether you believe it or not,” he wrote. From this near-absolute statement, many of his followers would have ostensibly asserted and others would take a few minutes to rethink this certainty?
Tim Anderson, a PhD researcher in general relativity and quantum field theory, has openly exposed a particular monologue arising from Tyson’s comment. “Science is true,” he slapped repeatedly in his mind. Is the science really true? Is it a word puzzle, or a philosophical question of existence, or not?
Andersen dares to speculate on Tyson’s phrase. “I don’t do it because I disagree with it, but because I feel that years ago the statement was misinterpreted. Ironically, its use against science, as if science’s claim to truth is a contradiction. But not. Rather, it is a shorthand way of saying that theories are theories.” Scientific has the weight of evidence to support it. Thus, it is independent of personal feelings, beliefs or beliefs. However, it is not “correct” and that is really good for science. “
The aim of the scientific method is to determine the truth of falsehood through observation, hypothesis, experiment and review, as it appears. This is how theories are formed that we generally consider “correct,” he says. As opposed to theological or philosophical statements about God, free will, moral behavior. Scientific proposals are supported by data that excludes alternative proposals. But are these assumptions “correct”? Truth refers to logical truth, which means that the proposition or statement follows from the introductions to the end. “
Detail of the claim: The science is correct
In your article The science may not be correct, Tim Anderson provides several examples to explain whether the science is correct. “I have the phrase,“ If it is raining, the grass is wet. ”So if you say,“ It’s raining, ”the phrase“ grass is wet ”logically follows. So, it’s true.
However, if I just say “the grass is wet”, I cannot infer that “it is raining” because “yes” only goes in one direction. I can “conclude” that it is raining, but I cannot say that it is raining, that is a real suggestion. The lawn can be wet for other reasons.
When looking at scientific data, such as Newton’s general law of gravitation, it is largely a matter of inferences rather than conclusions. Andersen, Georgia Tech’s chief science researcher, says a scientific theory or hypothesis functions as an introduction, not an outcome.
Another example. “If Newton’s law of cosmic gravitation is correct, then every member of the binary system (the sun and planet) will undergo an elliptical orbit. We notice that the two body systems obey elliptical orbits, so we conclude that Newton’s theory is correct. But, logically, this is a false opponent. We cannot. Except to conclude that Newton’s theory is correct, but if another theory also includes elliptical orbits, then this theory could be quite correct.
There are many introductions that can involve the same conclusions, especially for scientific assumptions that claim to be universal. The goal of science is to find the best.
“This is why I am better,” notes the scientist, “When I wear the philosopher’s hat, I use the words“ better ”and“ worse ”for scientific theories rather than“ right ”and“ wrong. ”Familiarity with this language can help in understanding how a scientific theory is replaced. .
Other options for science are correct: better or helpful
In his detailed arguments to delve into the claim that science is true, Andersen turns to another example. We know, he says, that Einstein’s theory of gravity explains phenomena that Newton’s theory does not explain. The reason for the precision of Mercury’s orbit and the curvature of light. In addition to the redshift of gravity, and many other measured phenomena that are not explained by Newton’s theory. However, this does not mean that Einstein’s theory is correct, nor does it mean that Newton’s theory is useless.
After all, Newton’s theory is widely used in ballistics and rocket science. For most purposes, it is transition theory to model the movement of everyday objects. Einstein is certainly not. Therefore, it is better to say that Einstein’s theory is “better” than Newton’s theory as an explanation for gravity. Meanwhile, Newton’s theory, while flawed, is still useful.
Somewhere there may be a better theory than Einstein’s theory to explain gravity, perhaps quantum theory, yet that doesn’t make Einstein’s theory useless either.
Andersen confirms in the portal Average That “science does not pursue the truth because it cannot locate the right places. Unlike mathematics, where buildings are defined simply. Science only seeks improvement.” In this case, we have a tool that can provide an arrangement of theories from best to worst: the Occam Code.
On the edge of the razor
As a scientist, Anderson continues pouring and explaining the phrase from Tyson that shocked him: The science is correct. It indicates that the Ockham code says that the best theory is the one that explains all the data and it is also the simplest. It is a method of arranging hypotheses to provide the most useful answers and thus the best answers to scientific questions. It does not tell you which theory is correct. It just tells you which one is better. In the end, that’s what matters.
One of the questions is whether science will one day discover a theory of everything that cannot be improved upon. Will this theory finally be true?
The scientist replies: “Unfortunately, logic does not work this way. The only way to know if a theory in science is correct or not is to define it yourself. In this case it will automatically be correct. You must be God.”