Progress of science

[Alkatran]

I've been reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson and I'm noticing a definite pattern.

When a new theory comes along this always seems to happen:
Theory is developed which explains many phenomena
Current scientists reject is
Theory grows slowly but surely (as does the contreversy)
Decades pass and the theory slooowwly slides into acceptance

Of course there are a few exceptions: the theory of gravity didn't seem to have much trouble for example.


But I think this is a really good example: YES humans are closed minded, but in the end evidence is all that matters. Science rules.


Of course right now the book is going for more of a "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" angle...

 

[athon]

While not exclusively the rule, this does seem to recur. And for very good reason; a model is not the same as the truth. With new evidence, often an old model appears less reliable; however, it still makes some successful predictions. Otherwise it would not have been adopted in the first place.

Hence people are less in favour of going from a model that they believe has worked in some instances to having no model at all (or one that has not made successful predictions yet).

I don't think this is a bad thing. It means new models have to proves themselves before replacing old models; new evidence on its own is not enough. Think about it; evidence on its own is rather useless if we don't see where it can be used to make good predictions about phenomena.

This whole 'paradigm shift' usually follows trends which sees the younger generation adopting a belief faster than the older generation. A little like it being easier for children to forget their undying faith in Santa Claus than an old Christian to forget about God.

The real problem with all of this comes when it is twisted by those who feel that not being accepted by the scientific community indicates that their theory has merit. Far more proposals have been rejected by the community and remained unfounded than those that have eventually won credit.

Athon

 

[crimresearch]

I've been reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson and I'm noticing a definite pattern.

When a new theory comes along this always seems to happen:
Theory is developed which explains many phenomena
Current scientists reject is
Theory grows slowly but surely (as does the contreversy)
Decades pass and the theory slooowwly slides into acceptance

Of course there are a few exceptions: the theory of gravity didn't seem to have much trouble for example.


But I think this is a really good example: YES humans are closed minded, but in the end evidence is all that matters. Science rules.


Of course right now the book is going for more of a "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" angle...

That is pretty much along the lines of what what Kuhn is saying in his 'The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions'.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Alkatran:

When a new theory comes along this always seems to happen:
Theory is developed which explains many phenomena
Current scientists reject is[/I]
I'm not sure I agree and the source of my disagreement is between this:

"Theory is developed which explains many phenomena"

and this:

"Current scientists reject is[sic]"

While I can believe that this has happened, I would think the course is more likely this:

Theory is developed which might explain many phenomena but has not been demonstrated yet to do so.

Current science strongly questions it, possibly (but not certainly) rejecting it, until the promised explanations materialize.

Explanations materialize.

Current science compares explanatory and predictive powers of new theory with previous theory.

Scientists wail and gnash teeth but dump old theory in face of evidence."

I don't think it's nitpicking to point out the difference.

 

[cbish]

Alkatran wrote:

Of course there are a few exceptions: the theory of gravity didn't seem to have much trouble for example.

Actually that's not quite true. There were problems with Newton's gravitational theories early on. Even Newton knew of them. It just took a couple of centuries to work them out. In fact, to some degree, they're still being worked out.

One thing along these lines, however, that is interesting is what Phillip Frank noted about 'scientific revolutions'. Frank noted that whenever there has been a major paradigm shift; i.e. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Quantum Mech., there has been a knee-jerk response to mysticism that slowly erodes away back towards empiricism. It's still occuring. Look how some people on this board try to use the Quantum concept to support their beliefs.

I work with a fundamentalist who is all excited about the multidimentional universe model proposed by String Theory. He hasn't come out and said it directly, yet, but I know where he's going. Parallel universes is where Heavan is.

 

[Dymanic]

the theory of gravity didn't seem to have much trouble for example.

Which theory of gravity was that again? You wouldn't by any chance be referring to the law of gravity?

 

[crimresearch]

I remember back when gravity was just a theory...

Takes itself far too seriously now, it does.

 

[Alkatran]

Which theory of gravity was that again? You wouldn't by any chance be referring to the law of gravity?

But it wasn't a law back then, was it?

 

[Alkatran]

One thing along these lines, however, that is interesting is what Phillip Frank noted about 'scientific revolutions'. Frank noted that whenever there has been a major paradigm shift; i.e. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Quantum Mech., there has been a knee-jerk response to mysticism that slowly erodes away back towards empiricism. It's still occuring. Look how some people on this board try to use the Quantum concept to support their beliefs.[/B]

Really? I've never heard of that.

I don't really see how jumping to gravity would be seen mystically, but then I'm not from back then.


So far though, the book is really good. I especially like how he clarified the fact that pluto was actually much further than text books make it look like (I never really though about it much) and how we'll probably never leave the planet and almost definitely never leave the solar system (under current physics).

 

[pgwenthold]

I have an old friend who once said, "The way science progesses is that old guys die."

 

[cbish]

Alkatran wrote:

Really? I've never heard of that

It's a book by Philip Frank The Philosophy of Science Prentice-Hall 1957.

Frank was a physicist who wrote extensively about philosophy and methodology. He was a member of the Vienna Circle back after WWI. He hung out in coffee shops with fellow physicists Rudolph Carnap, Hans Reichenback, Moritz Schlick among others. They pondered the work of Poincaire, Enst Mach and crap like that. They started the positivist movement. They all immigrated to the U.S. when the Nazi's showed up*. Frank ended up at Harvard.

As far as gravity, I don't think Frank meant just gravity. It was Newton's collective work that suggested a deterministic universe that mystics jumped all over. I don't recall the details. It's in the book.

*IIRC I think they decided to leave after the Nazi's offed Schlick because he had wacky ideas.

 

[Alkatran]

Originally posted by cbish It was Newton's collective work that suggested a deterministic universe that mystics jumped all over.

How ironic. People are jumping all over Quantum Physics because it is NOT deterministic (according to certain interpretations).

 

[cbish]

Yeah, that does sound sort of backwards. I don't remember exactly what the idea's were. Frank's point was that at the time of the new theories, scientific thought was at a materialistic/empirical point. Then, when the new work was done, people jump back to the mystic view. Then, slowly, the empirical view returns. He was commenting on the periodicity of this through history. I think these ideas are in line with your OP. Perhaps, if String Theory ever pans out, we might see this again.

 

[cbish]

Forget the determinism part. I think what got the mystics excited about Newton was the idea that the physical world could be explained mathematically. This presented order which suggested design. In fact, wasn't that Newton's motivation in the first place? Wasn't he pretty religious?

 

[Alkatran]

Forget the determinism part. I think what got the mystics excited about Newton was the idea that the physical world could be explained mathematically. This presented order which suggested design. In fact, wasn't that Newton's motivation in the first place? Wasn't he pretty religious?

According to the one I'm reading he was VERY religious. (He describes him as a bit crazy, actually)

Ah, the ol 'It's so orderly it must be designed' crap.


Are you sure it's not because for the period of time between when the evidence shows up and the theory is being accepted, we have no idea WTF is going on?

Planets are mysterious, until you realize it's just gravity. Amber is amazing, until you realize it's just electricity. Magnets are amazing, until... oh wait people still believe in that.