Science is inherently experimental and, as such, inherently has uncertainty associated with it. Scientists model physical observations using the best tools available. They are constantly trying to refine their understanding of how nature works. They are in a never-ending quest for truth. Consider the following quotes from Daniel Dennett in his article Postmodernism and Truth, found at http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=13, but it now appears to have been moved.
|
"Then we invented measuring, and arithmetic, and maps, and writing. These communicative and recording innovations come with a built-in ideal: truth. The point of asking questions is to find true answers; the point of measuring is to measure accurately; the point of making maps is to find your way to your destination."
"We human beings use our communicative skills not just for truth-telling, but also for promise-making, threatening, bargaining, story-telling, entertaining, mystifying, inducing hypnotic trances, and just plain kidding around, but prince of these activities is truth-telling, and for this activity we have invented ever better tools. Alongside our tools for agriculture, building, warfare, and transportation, we have created a technology of truth: science. Try to draw a straight line, or a circle, "freehand." Unless you have considerable artistic talent, the result will not be impressive. With a straight edge and a compass, on the other hand, you can practically eliminate the sources of human variability and get a nice clean, objective result, the same every time." "What inspires faith in arithmetic is the fact that hundreds of scribblers, working independently on the same problem, will all arrive at the same answer (except for those negligible few whose errors can be found and identified to the mutual satisfaction of all). This unrivalled objectivity is also found in geometry and the other branches of mathematics, which since antiquity have been the very model of certain knowledge set against the world of flux and controversy." "Yes, but science almost never looks as uncontroversial, as cut-and-dried, as arithmetic. Indeed rival scientific factions often engage in propaganda battles as ferocious as anything to be found in politics, or even in religious conflict. The fury with which the defenders of scientific orthodoxy often defend their doctrines against the heretics is probably unmatched in other arenas of human rhetorical combat. These competitions for allegiance--and, of course, funding--are designed to capture attention, and being well-designed, they typically succeed. This has the side effect that the warfare on the cutting edge of any science draws attention away from the huge uncontested background, the dull metal heft of the axe that gives the cutting edge its power. What goes without saying, during these heated disagreements, is an organized, encyclopedic collection of agreed-upon, humdrum scientific fact." "The methods of science aren't foolproof, but they are indefinitely perfectible. Just as important: there is a tradition of criticism that enforces improvement whenever and wherever flaws are discovered. The methods of science, like everything else under the sun, are themselves objects of scientific scrutiny, as method becomes methodology, the analysis of methods. Methodology in turn falls under the gaze of epistemology, the investigation of investigation itself--nothing is off limits to scientific questioning." |
|---|
The "technology of truth" called science often seems contradictory. It is inherently uncertain, but everyone can get the same result. It is always changing, but there is a "humdrum of scientific fact" that is agreed upon by all scientists. Maybe some explanations are in order.
In science the words hypothesis, theory, law, and fact are often used. What is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? Or between a theory and a law? Or between a law and a fact?Here are some definitions that may be used.
- Hypothesis - An idea that could explain an interesting observation. It is limited in scope and is an educated guess, meaning that there is reasoning that supports the idea. A guess without any reason for the guess is just a guess, not a hypothesis!
- Theory - A theory is broader in scope, has experimental support, is coherent, and is internally consistent. Experimental support means that experimental observations are consistent with the theory and experimentation bears out the truthfulness of predictions made by the theory. To be coherent and internally consistent means that all aspects of the theory itself are consistent. One part of the theory doesn't contradict another part of the theory. In science we are interested in theories that explain how something works or how an observation came to be that way.
- Law - Laws can be thought of as theories that are so well established that they seem to always be true under the specified conditions. Newton's laws are about force and motion as applied to large objects. If a very small particle is traveling very fast (close to the speed of light) Newton's laws no longer hold true. This idea that there are conditions that must be met in order for the law to be true is often overlooked.
- Fact - Facts can be thought of as pieces of experimental data that are so well established that they seem to always be true under the specified conditions. The boiling point of water is 100oC (a fact), but it is only true at one atmosphere of pressure. Science depends on the idea that the "facts" of science can be obtained by anyone anywhere as long as the conditions are the same. I emphasize that every fact will have a set of conditions attached to it.
- Data - Data comes from confirmed observations. A confirmed observation is a fact, it has been experimentally verified and is reproducible under the specified conditions. One piece of data is a fact.
There is another category that is sometimes called fundamental principles. These fundamental principles have held true throughout all of the history of humankind. The laws of thermodynamics are in this category. Conservation laws are also in this category. One expression of the conservation laws is that you can't get something from nothing. That seems to be a principle that is always true.These fundamental principles hold a special place when evaluating an idea as a scientific theory. No idea will have very much merit if it violates one of the fundamental principles that have been established over time.