4 ms·

The scientific method converges on the truth. But science need not. If the foundational assumptions are wrong or impossible to challenge, time t can extend in

The scientific method converges on the truth. But science need not. If the foundational assumptions are wrong or impossible to challenge, time t can extend indefinitely. Additionally, it is surely possible that whole sections of science is waylaid and diverges from truth on account of funding, legislation, big personalities, etc.

DrNosferatu 2y ago
But what is “truth”?
- karatinversion 2y ago
  To say of that which is, that is is, or of that which is not, that it is not
- nolist_policy 2y ago
  Useful models that allow us to make predictions.
  - guardian5x 2y ago
    The models are just an approximation to the truth. The truth is objective reality itself.
    - pixl97 2y ago
      Objective reality doesn't allow us to make predictions itself, it is an nonce. Unfortunately we don't have a time reversing machine to run entropy in reverse and see the thermodynamic truth. All we have is models, your consciousness being one of them.
- verisimi 2y ago
  Indeed. There is no independent arbitor. One can imagine that the collective, consensus answer is best, or not. If it is possible to steer that answer towards something that is beneficial to someone somewhere - why wouldn't vested interests do that?
akoboldfrying 2y ago
>The scientific method converges on the truth. There's actually quite a big assumption in here -- namely, that the truth is constant over time and throughout space. (This can possibly be weakened slightly, but that's the gist.) I personally think the laws of physics probably are unchanging, and I certainly hope they are (because that means the scientific method converges). But whether they actually are is not only unknown, but a question that cannot be answered by empirical science.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  This is an interesting point and one that physicists are aware of. But from a technical perspective, the math is perfectly capable of describing theoretical universes where the laws of physics change in time or space. For example, where physical constants are smoothly evolving or manifolds that don't look the same in all directions. The math can tell us what observations we'd expect in those situations, and so far we haven't observed anything to indicate we should relax those assumptions. If we did observe that the laws of physics were changing, that observation would be considered science in the traditional sense. So it's not that "truth" is shifting, it's that "truth" is a family of equations indexed by some parameter rather than a single equation. That's a similar flavor to the jump from Newtonian physics to relativity. If you're interested in this topic, a relevant key word is "cosmological principle": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
- SkyBelow 2y ago
  >There's actually quite a big assumption in here -- namely, that the truth is constant over time and throughout space. The current models include these assumptions for the same reason they include any other assumptions, because models where these assumptions aren't included don't do any better a job explaining any experimental results. If new experimental data shows these assumptions fail in some cases, then the models can be updated to handle them, same as any other failure has been handled in the past. (Granted each step becomes computationally more complex, so eventually we might hit a limit where it is too complex for a human to understand well enough to operate on.)
guappa 2y ago
Or stops at a local minimum :D
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  Yes this is a problem and it can (and has) lasted for centuries. I think this is the best way to talk about the difference between science as a process vs science as what people in white lab coats do. People have a tendency to conclude that we should abandon science if something isn't quite right. It's better to think in terms of what will get us un-stuck from a local minimum/maximum.
ants_everywhere 2y ago
> If the foundational assumptions are wrong or impossible to challenge, time t can extend indefinitely. This is an important point, but fortunately nature has provided us with a solution. Namely that teenagers are defiant and look for ways to distance themselves from their elders. This is Planck's principle that science advances one funeral at a time [0] > A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... > An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. — Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97 The biggest impediments have historically been multi-generational organizations whose power requires limiting access to science. Famously the centralized church in the time of Galileo. More recently the cigarette and oil industries. Things like big personalities and legislative priorities tend to have much shorter time scale and usually allow for science to ratchet forward generationally. Big personalities die, legislators turn over every few years in the best case or in a few generations in the worst case. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  It's not only teenagers. Lots of people are defiant through their entire lives, and those people do disproportionately like to work in science. Intra-generational power structures are a much larger impediment. Funerals take way too long to happen.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > Lots of people are defiant through their entire lives, and those people do disproportionately like to work in science. That is strange since to work in science today you have to be extremely compliant for close to a decade. Most people who aren't gets kicked out or removed in selection processes, what you have left is one of the most compliant parts of society.
SkyBelow 2y ago
>time t can extend indefinitely Isn't that generally what convergence means? At least in the math sense, we are talking about t at infinity, meaning that in any real world time limited application, there is always a gap.

DrNosferatu 2y ago

But what is “truth”?

karatinversion 2y ago
To say of that which is, that is is, or of that which is not, that it is not
nolist_policy 2y ago
Useful models that allow us to make predictions.
- guardian5x 2y ago
  The models are just an approximation to the truth. The truth is objective reality itself.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    Objective reality doesn't allow us to make predictions itself, it is an nonce. Unfortunately we don't have a time reversing machine to run entropy in reverse and see the thermodynamic truth. All we have is models, your consciousness being one of them.
verisimi 2y ago
Indeed. There is no independent arbitor. One can imagine that the collective, consensus answer is best, or not. If it is possible to steer that answer towards something that is beneficial to someone somewhere - why wouldn't vested interests do that?

akoboldfrying 2y ago

>The scientific method converges on the truth. There's actually quite a big assumption in here -- namely, that the truth is constant over time and throughout space. (This can possibly be weakened slightly, but that's the gist.) I personally think the laws of physics probably are unchanging, and I certainly hope they are (because that means the scientific method converges). But whether they actually are is not only unknown, but a question that cannot be answered by empirical science.

ants_everywhere 2y ago
This is an interesting point and one that physicists are aware of. But from a technical perspective, the math is perfectly capable of describing theoretical universes where the laws of physics change in time or space. For example, where physical constants are smoothly evolving or manifolds that don't look the same in all directions. The math can tell us what observations we'd expect in those situations, and so far we haven't observed anything to indicate we should relax those assumptions. If we did observe that the laws of physics were changing, that observation would be considered science in the traditional sense. So it's not that "truth" is shifting, it's that "truth" is a family of equations indexed by some parameter rather than a single equation. That's a similar flavor to the jump from Newtonian physics to relativity. If you're interested in this topic, a relevant key word is "cosmological principle": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
SkyBelow 2y ago
>There's actually quite a big assumption in here -- namely, that the truth is constant over time and throughout space. The current models include these assumptions for the same reason they include any other assumptions, because models where these assumptions aren't included don't do any better a job explaining any experimental results. If new experimental data shows these assumptions fail in some cases, then the models can be updated to handle them, same as any other failure has been handled in the past. (Granted each step becomes computationally more complex, so eventually we might hit a limit where it is too complex for a human to understand well enough to operate on.)

guappa 2y ago

Or stops at a local minimum :D

ants_everywhere 2y ago
Yes this is a problem and it can (and has) lasted for centuries. I think this is the best way to talk about the difference between science as a process vs science as what people in white lab coats do. People have a tendency to conclude that we should abandon science if something isn't quite right. It's better to think in terms of what will get us un-stuck from a local minimum/maximum.

ants_everywhere 2y ago

> If the foundational assumptions are wrong or impossible to challenge, time t can extend indefinitely. This is an important point, but fortunately nature has provided us with a solution. Namely that teenagers are defiant and look for ways to distance themselves from their elders. This is Planck's principle that science advances one funeral at a time [0] > A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... > An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. — Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97 The biggest impediments have historically been multi-generational organizations whose power requires limiting access to science. Famously the centralized church in the time of Galileo. More recently the cigarette and oil industries. Things like big personalities and legislative priorities tend to have much shorter time scale and usually allow for science to ratchet forward generationally. Big personalities die, legislators turn over every few years in the best case or in a few generations in the worst case. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

marcosdumay 2y ago
It's not only teenagers. Lots of people are defiant through their entire lives, and those people do disproportionately like to work in science. Intra-generational power structures are a much larger impediment. Funerals take way too long to happen.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > Lots of people are defiant through their entire lives, and those people do disproportionately like to work in science. That is strange since to work in science today you have to be extremely compliant for close to a decade. Most people who aren't gets kicked out or removed in selection processes, what you have left is one of the most compliant parts of society.

SkyBelow 2y ago

>time t can extend indefinitely Isn't that generally what convergence means? At least in the math sense, we are talking about t at infinity, meaning that in any real world time limited application, there is always a gap.