The Viability Of Science

[scameter]

I have begun reading a science book entitled The Fabric of Reality, by David Deutsch. He is an excellent theoretical physicist and philosopher, and I find him very intriguing. In the first chapter of his book, he answered a question I had been having in the extreme: if science is simply the memorization of facts, and not the actual understanding of what the theories and concepts in science are and what they mean. He said that as a child, his father told him that in ancient times, scholars believed themselves capable of knowing everything, but that now, knowledge is so large that we can only know a fraction of it in a long lifetime. He said that he was surprised and disappointed. But, he later said that when he thinks about knowing everything, he does not mean knowing things such as that there are 600,000 species of beetle, or other facts. He means to understand everything. And, he said that in science, there is a version of it called instrumentalism, in which it is thought that scientific findings are only there to make predictions and that the explanation of scientific theories is simply there for entertainment, and quoted one supporter of instrumentalism as saying that Einstein's general theory of relativity is only there for prediction, that it's explanation doesn't matter. He said that this view is wrong. He said that for example, if we received an oracle from an extraterrestrial race that predicted the end of experiments with 100% accuracy. He said that this would be great, but not very good, because, for instance, it could not tell us how to build a spaceship, or how to plot a flight path for a spaceship; we would still have to formulate the ship and it's path, then tell it to the oracle and it could tell us if it would be successful, but that's it. He also said that memorizing scientific formulae is not everything; he said that that is simply memorizing the method of attaining the facts. He said that the explanation is what is most important; he said that an astronomer does not memorize the exact flight path of the planets of the solar system. They understand how it works, however, and can then predict how it will come, but that the prediction step, however helpful, is supplementary to the actual explanation. I was very glad to hear this, as it essentially answered my question; there is more to science than simply memorizing facts and formulae. It takes understanding. He also said that his book required trusting in the validity of science; he said that it was not like trusting in common sense, which his book would make more sense than. It was trusting in our ability to perceive the fabric of reality, and in explanation. :)

[Nordac]

I completely agree with you. For example, about the astomoner, if he was to plot a flight plath now, in a few thousand years, due to stella drift and the expansion on the universe, the distance between stars will have changed, and therefore, the path would be come useless. But if you were to understand why the universe was expanding, you could make a prediction on how far apart the stars will drift, and then compensate, and make you path alot more accurate, for a lot longer.

Nordac

[scameter]

That's entirely correct my friend. It's about understanding and explanation, with prediction being supplementary. Welcome. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Deutsch did some groundbreaking theoretical work in informatics by introducing the concept of the quantum computer, which can be seen as an expansion of the Turing machine. He is certainly brilliant. I don't agree with his critique of instrumentalism though, which you cited above. Instrumentalism is to epistemology pretty much what utilitarianism is to ethics, however, without the inherent weaknesses of the latter. The problem of utilitarianism is that it allows for the "end justifies the means" principle, whereas in epistemology the means and the ends are usually the same. The model or theory is the means for predictions as well as the end in itself. We are interested in the scientific model, because the model delivers accurate predictions. The reason why we are interested in the model, rather than in a finite set of facts or predictions, is because the model allows for an infinite number of predictions, and -additionally- it delivers a framework from which derivative models may be constructed. This makes the model much more valuable. Besides, most people find it easier to remember how something works, rather than memorising thousands of facts about results.

And what has all of this to do with the "viability of science"? This appears to be a redundant phrase like the "wetness of rain". :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

The model or theory is the means for predictions as well as the end in itself.

That is how it should be, yes. But, in scientific instrumentalism, the model and theory are not the ends in themselves, and only matter as to their predictive ability, as he quoted an instrumentalist physicist on saying about the general theory of relativity.

We are interested in the scientific model, because the model delivers accurate predictions.

Yes, that is how instrumentalism is. But, he says that such a belief is wrong; that the predictions available from scientific theories is not all that matters; it is simply supplementary. That the explanation and subsequent understanding of scientific theories and ideas is what is truly important.

And what has all of this to do with the "viability of science"? This appears to be a redundant phrase like the "wetness of rain".

:P Sorry for the lack of clarity there. I named it the Viability of Science because I was discussing if science is viable, and why, especially in the third fourth of my original post: He also said that his book required trusting in the validity of science; he said that it was not like trusting in common sense, which his book would make more sense than. It was trusting in our ability to perceive the fabric of reality, and in explanation.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: Yes, that is how instrumentalism is. But, he [D. Deutsch] says that such a belief is wrong; that the predictions available from scientific theories is not all that matters; it is simply supplementary. That the explanation and subsequent understanding of scientific theories and ideas is what is truly important.

I did not read David Deutsch's book, but what you quoted about instrumentalism is probably not quite right. The point about instrumentalism is that it does not consider scientific models truth-evaluable. This distinguishes it from scientific realism. The assumption of scientific realism is that the entities described by scientific theories do actually exist. For example, a realist would say that quarks do actually exist, while an instrumentalist would say that quarks are just a theoretical model. Instrumentalism doesn't say: "We are only interested in the predictions, not in the model." That would be a misunderstanding of instrumentalism, and somehow I doubt that Deutsch made such an error. Instrumentalism is certainly interested in the model, but it views the model and its predictive power as an inseperable entity. That is, the accuracy of the predictions measures the quality/success of the theory and without such measurability a model is obviously quite useless (see "pseudoscience").

Let me give you another example. There are two different mathematical models that describe quantum mechanical systems, Schrödinger's wave equation and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. Both models describe the same thing and provide predictions with the same "accuracy", but they use entirely different maths. This would pose quite a problem for the realist, wouldn't it? The realist must decide whether nature is like wave mechanics or whether it is like matrix mechanics. For the instrumentalist this is not a problem at all, because both models are equivalent in terms of predictive power. The instrumentalist denies that it makes sense to say that one model is "truer" than another.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

I see what you're saying my friend. But I assure you, I am not misquoting him, nor did he misquote an instrumentalist scientist. And, he also did not call himself a scientific realist, mainly because he critisized both prediction and description as not being the same thing as understanding. He says that often in physics, prediction and description is expressed as mathematical formulae. "Facts cannot be understood just by summing them up in a formula, any more than being listed on paper or committed to memory. They can only be understood by being explained. Fortunately, our best theories embody deep explanations as well as accurate predictions." On instrumentalism, he says, "To them, the basic purpose of a scientific theory is not to explain anything, but to predict the outcomes of experiments: it's entire content lies in it's predictive formulae." He then follows to quote the instrumentalist. To him, both of the models you exemplified should be considered logically, but they should not be seen as simply their in theoretical form only for their predictive natures.

By the way Thomas my friend, and others here, I would simply like to thank all of you for your attempt, often successfully, at open-mindedness. To me, it is the most important quality, and I have discussed intellectual topics with others, such as in chat rooms, and they have been so closed-minded it is nearly sickening; to them, science is everything, evidence is everything, and they will make no effort to think beyond, because evidence does not follow for it (even though 120 years ago, evidence didn't account for the theory of relativity either :P). I really thank everyone here for their open-mindedness. Thank you. :)

[todd]

There are a few things to be clarified here.
Science is a generic term for all kinds of studies, but except mathematics all of them start from observation, followed by experimentation, development of theories, formulas and finally models which lead to reasonable approximation of events - prediction.


And, he said that in science, there is a version of it called instrumentalism, in which it is thought that scientific findings are only there to make predictions and that the explanation of scientific theories is simply there for entertainment, and quoted one supporter of instrumentalism as saying that Einstein's general theory of relativity is only there for prediction, that it's explanation doesn't matter.

This is true, but you miss the reason. The fact is that there is no such thing as absolutely true theory. There are theories and theories and theories that all try to explain the same phenomenon that we perceive. One after another they loose their power of prediction and become obsolete, or remain valid only for a certain, limited area of interest. This is why some scientists today are not interested anymore in the details of each new theory, but mostly in its predictive power, because they are looking for some specific results that may finally lead to a new, better one. But the lack of interest doesn't mean that they don't understand the theory they apply.

I was very glad to hear this, as it essentially answered my question; there is more to science than simply memorizing facts and formulae. It takes understanding.

Generally science has nothing to do with memorizing; science is facts, logic, deduction and prediction. You can memorize all the mathematical formulas you find, but this doesn't mean you will ever be able to solve an equation. You cannot apply something you only memorized, because if you do, you understand its meaning, applicability and use.

Yes, that is how instrumentalism is. But, he says that such a belief is wrong; that the predictions available from scientific theories is not all that matters; it is simply supplementary. That the explanation and subsequent understanding of scientific theories and ideas is what is truly important.

Let's try to explain how a theory is being developed: a scientist observes a certain matter behavior, which is not being explained by any available theory. He will try to analyze the phenomenon, use his previous knowledge, imagine several possible scenarios, choose the most plausible ones and try to fundament them with formulas. Eventually he will discover that one of his formulas is proven true. The point is: HE INVENTS THE FORMULA!!! - it is not deducted from previous theories, it just eventually fits in. Now, what is here to understand, the process of creation itself? No, is how the formula applies to matter behavior, and what are the consequences.

In the past few decades, in applied science there is a newer approach - instead of trying to "guess" the applicable formula it is possible to find a mathematical model that does not try to explain the phenomena, but is only used to predict it. It is called systems modeling and initially was used in electronics and automations, but now it is present in most sciences. Basically it consists in a very simple concept - everything can be considered a system, a black box, which will react in various ways at various stimuli. If enough data is collected, a mathematical system of equation (model) can be built and used to approximate system’s status and predict its behavior with acceptable accuracy. There is no theory here, just mathematics, and the equations are usually extremely complex. It becomes almost impossible to "understand" from theses equations why the system reacts in a certain way, but this is not the point. The fact is that the results can be used as well as any "theory" which may not be available. The success of these models depends on the amount of data collected and the computational power available. Given the evolution of the informational systems my guess is that we will soon see this approach taking over, which will really mean lack of understanding. I believe we will start applying formulas with various grades of predefined accuracy in the same way today software programmers are using libraries of routines like MSDN without thinking about their content and having no idea about machine code, processors or physical layers.

[scameter]

Science is a generic term for all kinds of studies, but except mathematics all of them start from observation, followed by experimentation, development of theories, formulas and finally models which lead to reasonable approximation of events - prediction.

*All* kinds of studies? Even ones that were pursued before science existed? Yes, studies can be pursued scientifically, but they do not have to be.

But the lack of interest doesn't mean that they don't understand the theory they apply.

I did not miss the reason you describe. But, the problem with what I just quoted is that they may understand the theories, but that is not their goal; they are no longer interested in understanding nature. They wish to use their theories into their most appropriate manners in order to better predict, mainly for technological purposes, and thus they begin to lose the conceptual flavour of physics especially.

You can memorize all the mathematical formulas you find, but this doesn't mean you will ever be able to solve an equation. You cannot apply something you only memorized, because if you do, you understand its meaning, applicability and use.

Indeed. That is part of what I was saying, that there is more to it. Although, I still think a large bit of it is memorizing facts and formulae, there is simply another way to it; but, what do you mean you can memorize a formula and it doesn't mean you'll be able to solve the applicable equation? I thought that was a formula's purpose?

Eventually he will discover that one of his formulas is proven true. The point is: HE INVENTS THE FORMULA!!! - it is not deducted from previous theories, it just eventually fits in.

So, he entirely invents the formula himself, using no prior formulae? How could he do this? The reason his new formulas fit in is because he takes his observations, the observations and theories of others and of the past, and then creates his own formula to explain what he is trying to explain; this doesn't mean he entirely does it himself. He uses other things, and his own logic, to create an appropriate theory/formula.

It becomes almost impossible to "understand" from theses equations why the system reacts in a certain way, but this is not the point.

And that is why I dislike modern science and like philosophy much better. Philosophy's goal is wisdom and understanding, not equations and applicability. Science is moving away from the passion of it into the practicality of it.

[sonrisa]

Scam, when did science not exist?

[scameter]

Before the invention of the scientific method, in my opinion.