4 ms·

That would be true if the development of our understanding had happened at a linear pace. It hasn't, though. Our understanding of the physical universe has gro

by Delk 5y ago

That would be true if the development of our understanding had happened at a linear pace. It hasn't, though. Our understanding of the physical universe has grown so much within the last hundred or couple hundred years that I'm not sure understanding had grown equally much even throughout the entire preceding human history. At least you'd have to go pretty far in history. With accelerating growth of understanding you will, at some point, get to "mostly correct". I don't know if we're there yet but you can't extrapolate linearly from history that we aren't.

colordrops 5y ago
I don't see how the pace of understanding is important. It presumes that we are somehow getting closer to the "truth", the absolute nature of reality. That is not how science works. It says nothing of "truth" - that's the realm of religion and philosophy. It builds models that can be tested empirically, refined and sometimes replaced. The acceleration of the last couple hundred years only says that we are getting better at refining the current model to match current testing capabilities, but it doesn't make the model impervious to some bit of information we could discovery that destroys its entire validity. The Catholic church did great a refining their model of reality and making it more internally self-consistent, but it doesn't mean that it's the same thing as the truth. Neither is a particular scientific model, and it is just as prone to being eventually dismantled or replaced. One pathological example that could overturn our entire understanding of the physical world is finding out that we are in a simulation. You'd think you were "mostly correct" until you are "100% wrong". Not suggesting we are in a simulation, but it's an example that shows that as long as the possibility exists that we can discover something that overturns our current models, there's no way we can say we are "close to the truth". It's pompous and presumptuous.
- kiba 5y ago
  Again, just because it's possible that there's more to cover doesn't make it true. I don't see how the pace of understanding is important. It presumes that we are somehow getting closer to the "truth", the absolute nature of reality. That is not how science works. It says nothing of "truth" OK, you can argue semantic all you want, but science is pretty much the closest thing we have to 'truth'. The acceleration of the last couple hundred years only says that we are getting better at refining the current model to match current testing capabilities, but it doesn't make the model impervious to some bit of information we could discovery that destroys its entire validity. No. Newton's Law isn't invalidated just because we came up with relativity. It's useful enough that we still use it to calculate orbit and teach students and do a kazillion things with it. It is incorrect to assume that one day in the future that some new theory will destroy our previous understanding and invalidate everything we know.
  - iainmerrick 5y ago
    Here’s a possible counterexample: our understanding of the overall shape and structure of the universe has changed drastically over the last 100 years. The concept of a “galaxy” is fairly new; the idea that the universe is expanding is fairly new and was initially shocking (most scientists had assumed a steady state); the idea that expansion is accelerating is new and surprising.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    Constellations are still useful for teaching the stars, but it doesn't mean that mythical beings embedded themselves in the sky. Discovering that the earth was not the center of the universe pretty much did invalidate everything we know about cosmology. Newton's laws are fine for now, but once again, it doesn't make them truth. It makes them useful tools. We can't confuse useful for true, that's the entire point, because one day, even if it's still useful, there's a chance it will be found to not be true.

by Delk 5y ago

colordrops 5y ago

I don't see how the pace of understanding is important. It presumes that we are somehow getting closer to the "truth", the absolute nature of reality. That is not how science works. It says nothing of "truth" - that's the realm of religion and philosophy. It builds models that can be tested empirically, refined and sometimes replaced. The acceleration of the last couple hundred years only says that we are getting better at refining the current model to match current testing capabilities, but it doesn't make the model impervious to some bit of information we could discovery that destroys its entire validity. The Catholic church did great a refining their model of reality and making it more internally self-consistent, but it doesn't mean that it's the same thing as the truth. Neither is a particular scientific model, and it is just as prone to being eventually dismantled or replaced. One pathological example that could overturn our entire understanding of the physical world is finding out that we are in a simulation. You'd think you were "mostly correct" until you are "100% wrong". Not suggesting we are in a simulation, but it's an example that shows that as long as the possibility exists that we can discover something that overturns our current models, there's no way we can say we are "close to the truth". It's pompous and presumptuous.

kiba 5y ago
Again, just because it's possible that there's more to cover doesn't make it true. I don't see how the pace of understanding is important. It presumes that we are somehow getting closer to the "truth", the absolute nature of reality. That is not how science works. It says nothing of "truth" OK, you can argue semantic all you want, but science is pretty much the closest thing we have to 'truth'. The acceleration of the last couple hundred years only says that we are getting better at refining the current model to match current testing capabilities, but it doesn't make the model impervious to some bit of information we could discovery that destroys its entire validity. No. Newton's Law isn't invalidated just because we came up with relativity. It's useful enough that we still use it to calculate orbit and teach students and do a kazillion things with it. It is incorrect to assume that one day in the future that some new theory will destroy our previous understanding and invalidate everything we know.
- iainmerrick 5y ago
  Here’s a possible counterexample: our understanding of the overall shape and structure of the universe has changed drastically over the last 100 years. The concept of a “galaxy” is fairly new; the idea that the universe is expanding is fairly new and was initially shocking (most scientists had assumed a steady state); the idea that expansion is accelerating is new and surprising.
- colordrops 5y ago
  Constellations are still useful for teaching the stars, but it doesn't mean that mythical beings embedded themselves in the sky. Discovering that the earth was not the center of the universe pretty much did invalidate everything we know about cosmology. Newton's laws are fine for now, but once again, it doesn't make them truth. It makes them useful tools. We can't confuse useful for true, that's the entire point, because one day, even if it's still useful, there's a chance it will be found to not be true.