How do we know scientific theories accurately describe our reality?
Topic: Scientific abstracts
April 25, 2019 / By Kolman Question:
Here me out.
Our scientific assumptions have changed over time, in paradigm shifts. For example, at one time it was logical to believe the world was flat, since it did not contradict the scientific truths they had back then (the curvature of the earth did not effect them). Now we 'know' the world is round, because it coincides with our current scientific truth. A round earth theory is easy for us to accept since it is visual, intuitive and reasonable in our minds.
But now the frontier of science is much more abstract and not as intuitive. Before, atoms were seen as the smallest unit of matter, then it was realized that they were made of protons, neutrons and electrons, then it was realized those contain quarks..and now the fundamental units might possibly be strings.
At first, the world was seen to follow the simple Aristotelian physics, then Newton came and developed a new way of looking at the world. People forgot about the old view and adopted the new view. After hundreds of years of improving that Newtonian view, Einstein came along and scrapped Newton's view, and presented his new view of reality, based on relativity. Now, there are several competing views on how to describe our reality the best (M theory, String theory etc.) How do we choose what we believe to be truth about our reality? How do we know another theory will not be proposed afterwards? Does newer, abstract, nonintuitive science take 'faith' into believing that it is true, that no other evidence will be found in the future to prove that it was false all along?
What if science showed us that world is not round, but something else? Could we so easily forget that we were ignorantly believing the wrong thing all this time, and so easily embrace this new truth? Isnt that a form of doublethink, as in 1984?
Generally, people today live as though the world follows the Newtonian model of physics, and any post-1900 scientific truths are taken at face value, and it sometimes seems to me as a familiar "leap of faith" that people take with religious truth.
btw, I am an atheist, and an engineering student, but these are questions that I have been pondering.
Best Answers: How do we know scientific theories accurately describe our reality?
Immanuel | 8 days ago
We know the current set of theories works, because we test them. We know they do not describe all of Reality, but simply predict what will be measured in certain circumstances. Like searching for a lost item in the dark... under a streetlight, even though it might not have been lost there.
Since I've already answered the questions you have asked here again, I'll only add this one final thought. People in general accept the physics of Aristotle, with some not-too-small minority having a feel for the physics of Newton. The number of people on the cutting edge of physics are small, and most of them must depend on their mathematics and their skill for "feel".
We don't need to waste energy looking for Reality, Truth or spend any energy finding "realest" or "truthiest. They are all tools, and all have some useful domain. Where we need effort is to put up new streetlights, not ranking the brightness of a particular one.
👍 164 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? How do we know scientific theories accurately describe our reality?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Scientific abstracts
Originally Answered: How many of these points accurately describe the U.S?
Is there a single accredited political scientist that agrees with that list? Outside of the internet, the Britt list has little recognition. My graduate school professor, an old 1960s hippie, stated that it appeared to be pigeon-holed; he did not even know about the list until an undergrad showed it to him.
As for the list:
1. Is every nation in the World Cup fascist?
2. Summary executions are conducted without trial. Which nation fits this better, the United States or Cuba? I doubt that the people Ernesto Guevara shot through prison bars were given due process
3. Look at the actions of Hugo Chavez and see who is finding enemies everywhere.
4. In the 2011 federal budget, military spending is 25% while social programs are 36%.
BTW. After the fall of France, Nazi Germany actually cut the size of its military. True, the Nazis
did build up the Germany military, from a size far smaller than that of modern Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.
5. Are there many women leading Cuba and Venezuela? Apparently not. BTW. The United States granted women the right to vote before most industrial nations.
6. Is the American media controlled by the government? Not even PBS and NPR are. Compare that to nationalized press in Cuba and Venezuela. Chavez has repeatedly attempted to curb opposition media.
7. Isn't this a repeat of #3?
8. Nazi Germany greatly repressed religion, making its party ideology a religion of its own. Much like communist nations have done.
9. This is the real basis of the list: to blame big business. Is it a symptom of fascism or a cry for class warfare?
10. There are labor unions in the United States. How many exist in Cuba, Vietnam, and China?
11. There is no federal funding of the arts? Just because the people do not want taxes to fund photos of a naked man with a whip shoved up his anus does not mean repression of the arts. Ever think that some "artists" need government grants because nobody wants to buy their "art"?
12. Is this a repeat of #2? Or is it an excuse for not taking personal responsibility?
13. Cronyism and corruption in government? Gee, that is something new! BTW. Has Cuba had a president not named Castro?
14. You mean like dead people voting, buying votes, and intimidation of the polls? Then Acorn and Black Panthers must be fascists. BTW. Hitler was never elected, so there was no fraudulent election that put him in power. And Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000, Richard Daley, had more to do with election fraud than anybody.
If you actually look at that list, Cuba and Venezuela (supposedly "workers' paradises") fit into fascism far more than the United States does.
The clinical approach is in preserving with skepticism no longer faith. each and every clinical speculation would properly be puzzled at any time and any new techniques should be observed through an attempt which will make sure them. Nature itself is seen the only right authority. technological know-how discards those theories that do not accept as true with Nature. New techniques do no longer rip aside each and everything all of us understand. Its called a paradigm shift no longer a paradigm earthquake. Believing that the earth is flat worked advantageous for surveyors and visitors or perhaps map makers. It did not rather develop right into a project until eventually human beings all started crusing in the open seas and needed to figure out the position they were. That the earth is rather round and by no potential flat does no longer make an excellent number of distinction to the immediately ahead guy. notwithstanding it does clarify some issues that did not accept as true with the flat earth believers.
👍 60 | 👎 6
I think our scientific theory can never accurately describe the reality due to the fact that our entire universe is always in progress stage. Because of everything is in progress, therefore whatever proofs that we have is only temporary. What is right today may not be right tomorrow because of the changing factor. That is also the reason why I believe there is no static source or ultimate source in our entire source because everything that we prove it right, eventually will be wrong especially when you look at different level of perspective. I hope that makes sense.
👍 53 | 👎 4
That's why theories are theories, and will suffice until a more logical or provable theory is accepted.
We now know our world is NOT spherical, it bulges at the equator, and has high and low areas all over it, for example.
Theories will be accepted as fact for the time being, providing they appear to work.
So far, so good.
👍 46 | 👎 2