The Goal of Science

[Randolpin]

Science searches the truth. If science has an incomplete explanation of reality (since it is still discovering the mysteries of reality) how can people already established a strong belief of something, yet science is not completely explaining the reality?

[Mordred]

strong experimental support under rigorous and various tests.

 

Science doesn't seek the truth per se it seeks the best explanation within experimental limits. As our understanding and technology improve any theory can be shown incorrect as new research presents itself.

[swansont]

Science searches the truth. If science has an incomplete explanation of reality (since it is still discovering the mysteries of reality) how can people already established a strong belief of something, yet science is not completely explaining the reality?

 

 

Science is not the search for truth. Science attempts to explain how nature behaves, not what it is. At a fundamental level, you can't tell if your model is reality or not — there's no way to test it.

 

To paraphrase Dr. Jones, "[science] is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

[Itoero]

It is wrong to think that the task of science is to find out how Nature is. Science concerns what we say about Nature.

[swansont]

It is wrong to think that the task of science is to find out how Nature is. Science concerns what we say about Nature.

 

 

Not even that. We can say anything we want about nature. Unless you test it to see if nature behaves that way, that's not science.

[Itoero]

Not even that. We can say anything we want about nature. Unless you test it to see if nature behaves that way, that's not science.

Ok, but how can we know we're dealing with real science? You have to believe in the validity of experiments. (like the bell test exp)

[Phi for All]

Science searches the truth. If science has an incomplete explanation of reality (since it is still discovering the mysteries of reality) how can people already established a strong belief of something, yet science is not completely explaining the reality?

 

Please don't take this personally, but that's the worst answer you could have given. It betrays everything that makes science meaningful. You're simultaneously saying that if we don't know everything we don't know anything, and that your subjective "truth" is trustworthy enough to base an explanation on. It's clear you need to stop making assertions from ignorance and learn something with a question or two.

[Randolpin]

Through science, we are holding only on belief. Our belief base on what reality presents to us as we measure it. Not the mechanisms behind the reality (assuming that there are hidden mechanisms of reality).

[swansont]

Through science, we are holding only on belief. Our belief base on what reality presents to us as we measure it. Not the mechanisms behind the reality (assuming that there are hidden mechanisms of reality).

 

 

Which definition of belief?

[Phi for All]

Through science, we are holding only on belief.

 

But it's a belief you can trust, rather than a belief you merely hope for, or are forced to have only faith in.

[Randolpin]

 

 

Which definition of belief?

 

 

For example, we believe a certain model because it best fits in explaining our reality through the aid of logic. As what you have pointed already that a certain model of reality could be wrong if new better models of reality are discovered. So we are holding only on a belief.We are not sure of the true nature of reality. Because models could be wrong.

[Phi for All]

 

 

For example, we believe a certain model because it best fits in explaining our reality through the aid of logic. As what you have pointed already that a certain model of reality could be wrong if new better models of reality are discovered. So we are holding only on a belief.We are not sure of the true nature of reality. Because models could be wrong.

 

No. No, no, no. We don't "believe" in models that way. We trust them because of the preponderance of evidence that supports them. They represent our BEST explanations because they reflect reality BEST. That's why we believe in them, because these models have been tested and are worthy of our trust.

 

And btw, if a model isn't complete, it's constantly being added to with more trustworthy data. It's not wrong because it's incomplete. You don't throw out a model because it doesn't tell you everything.

 

It's still a building even if you haven't finished putting in all the carpet, right?

[Randolpin]

 

No. No, no, no. We don't "believe" in models that way. We trust them because of the preponderance of evidence that supports them. They represent our BEST explanations because they reflect reality BEST. That's why we believe in them, because these models have been tested and are worthy of our trust.

Yet still believe. I understand. Belief is still required for it to work.

What's the difference between belief you can trust and not. There is no difference at all. They are both beliefs....

 

No. No, no, no. We don't "believe" in models that way. We trust them because of the preponderance of evidence that supports them. They represent our BEST explanations because they reflect reality BEST. That's why we believe in them, because these models have been tested and are worthy of our trust.

 

And btw, if a model isn't complete, it's constantly being added to with more trustworthy data. It's not wrong because it's incomplete. You don't throw out a model because it doesn't tell you everything.

 

It's still a building even if you haven't finished putting in all the carpet, right?

 

 

so science really searches the truth, meaning slowly seeking the complete picture of reality. Like your example, a building. Science is like a construction worker, it slowly builts a building until it become complete.

[Prometheus]

Yet still believe. I understand. Belief is still required for it to work.

What's the difference between belief you can trust and not. There is no difference at all. They are both beliefs....

 

 

 

I am free to believe whatever i like, including that i am king of the potato people. They are a good people (a chip off the old block you might say) and have built many magnificent monuments to me.

 

I also believe that if I hold my pen up and let it go it will fall.

 

Are these beliefs equal? They are both beliefs...

Edited December 5, 2016 by Prometheus

[Phi for All]

Yet still believe. I understand. Belief is still required for it to work.

What's the difference between belief you can trust and not. There is no difference at all. They are both beliefs....

 

* Sigh *

 

Types of Belief:

Hope -- I can't support the idea rationally, I think it's probably right, so I'm going to believe it anyway.

Faith -- I can't support the idea rationally, but think it's so important to me that I will believe strongly in it, and have confidence it will be exactly as I believe.

Trust -- I have made observations, devised experiments to test the idea against reality, I've tried to remove all subjectivity from my process, I've come to conclusions, shared them with colleagues, received feedback, made predictions based on revised information, tested those predictions, encouraged colleagues to repeat my experiments, and supported a precise, objective methodology to pile up a preponderance of evidence to support my idea, and I believe it because I'm confident it was arrived at rationally.

[swansont]

For example, we believe a certain model because it best fits in explaining our reality through the aid of logic. As what you have pointed already that a certain model of reality could be wrong if new better models of reality are discovered. So we are holding only on a belief.We are not sure of the true nature of reality. Because models could be wrong.

 

 

How wrong a model is can be quantified. Models accepted in science have a limit as to how wrong they can be. Their acceptance is measured as how confident we are that they are correct, and over what range the model applies. Newtonian gravity is wrong, and yet it's good enough to have let us land men on the moon and return them safely to earth. Because the amount by which it's wrong is small compared to the precision needed to undertake that task.

 

Contrast that with a "blind faith" sort of belief. Not at all the same thing.

[Eise]

I have made observations, devised experiments to test the idea against reality, I've tried to remove all subjectivity from my process, I've come to conclusions, shared them with colleagues, received feedback, made predictions based on revised information, tested those predictions, encouraged colleagues to repeat my experiments, and supported a precise, objective methodology to pile up a preponderance of evidence to support my idea, and I believe it because I'm confident it was arrived at rationally.

 

... and we have based technology based on it.

 

And you, Randolpin, are using it now.

 

The models made in science make empirical predictions that can be tested. That does not necessarily mean that these models are 'The Truth': but the empirical conclusions from it are confirmed experimentally. That means you can trust these empirical results.

 

Ok, but how can we know we're dealing with real science? You have to believe in the validity of experiments. (like the bell test exp)

Of course you need belief. You must belief that thousands of physicists are not lying; that they did their work correctly. And one reason is what Phi for All so clearly stated: experiments are repeated, especially when they are nearly unbelievable, like Bell tests. Remember cold fusion: many groups tested Fleischmann's and Pons' claims, because if it were true the chances for our civilisation would be enormous. It was not enough just to say: "We don't believe it because it does not fit to our present models". So there is a 'cleansing mechanism' in science, especially in the hard sciences. It may not take effect immediately always, but in the end false claims will be unmasked or corrected.

 

Throwing over a general accepted central theory in science will guarantee you a Nobel-price.

(Oh so different in ideologies and religion...)

[iNow]

Science is a process we use to help prevent us from fooling ourselves and others

[Randolpin]

 

* Sigh *

 

Types of Belief:

Hope -- I can't support the idea rationally, I think it's probably right, so I'm going to believe it anyway.

Faith -- I can't support the idea rationally, but think it's so important to me that I will believe strongly in it, and have confidence it will be exactly as I believe.

Trust -- I have made observations, devised experiments to test the idea against reality, I've tried to remove all subjectivity from my process, I've come to conclusions, shared them with colleagues, received feedback, made predictions based on revised information, tested those predictions, encouraged colleagues to repeat my experiments, and supported a precise, objective methodology to pile up a preponderance of evidence to support my idea, and I believe it because I'm confident it was arrived at rationally.

 

 

Yes, I know that. I just want to clarify, how come science is not the search for truth?

[Mordred]

Science recognizes the truth as to the best of our knowledge by recognizing there is always room for error. That is the recognized truth to science.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

Yes, I know that. I just want to clarify, how come science is not the search for truth?

 

Can you think of a truth, something that is universally true for all people everywhere, that isn't also a tautology (red roses are red)?

 

Most of the things people think are true are subjective to them or their culture (theft is wrong), and part of the scientific method is identifying the subjective influences in your arguments and ideas, and minimizing their effect. A court of law might try to seek out the "truth" of what happened in a particular case, but they use science to build a preponderance of evidence to support the case. I'd say leave the truth to the law, and focus on the preponderance of scientific evidence.

[Randolpin]

 

Can you think of a truth, something that is universally true for all people everywhere, that isn't also a tautology (red roses are red)?

 

Most of the things people think are true are subjective to them or their culture (theft is wrong), and part of the scientific method is identifying the subjective influences in your arguments and ideas, and minimizing their effect. A court of law might try to seek out the "truth" of what happened in a particular case, but they use science to build a preponderance of evidence to support the case. I'd say leave the truth to the law, and focus on the preponderance of scientific evidence.

 

 

So we are not really sure what reality really is base on science.

Science recognizes the truth as to the best of our knowledge by recognizing there is always room for error. That is the recognized truth to science.

 

 

 

So science recognizes or uncover what truth is?

[iNow]

Science is the method we use to minimize the errors in our model if the universe and continuously refine its accuracy

[StringJunky]

 

 

So we are not really sure what reality really is base on science.

 

 

 

So science recognizes or uncover what truth is?

Science seeks to describe and accurately predict the behaviour of the universe through the use of models. If the models work they are considered to be an accurate reflection of the way the universe behaves. Science doesn't do truth because it requires total commitment to an idea and the past shows that ideas change, so the notion of truth is always a moving target.

Edited December 6, 2016 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

So we are not really sure what reality really is base on science.

 

I wouldn't say it that way, no.