Scientific Monism

[Dancing David]

I have often what effect that monotheism has had on science. I realize that science is a method for deciding which theory predicts reality better.
But so often people feel that there is just one right answer.

Is it possible for there to be more than one right thery or answer?

 

[jj]

I have often what effect that monotheism has had on science. I realize that science is a method for deciding which theory predicts reality better.
But so often people feel that there is just one right answer.

Is it possible for there to be more than one right thery or answer?

Depends on what you call an answer. Many answers are probabilistic in nature. Is that "one answer" or not?

It is certainly possible to rework an equation into a different form, that is usually not considered another theory, and one could add different supersets that predict something different that's untested, having two theories that conform to reality as known, but only one of which can be accurate after some particular new test is done, etc.

So what do you mean by "answer".

If the question is "how much energy does it take to speed up a 1 kg weight by 1 m/s" the answer is interesting, let's say, as you get moving right along At low speeds relative to the rest of the system, there are two theories that give you the "right" answer to a lot of 9's. At high speeds, no. So, what do you mean by an answer? I think that is the key to your question.

 

[Dancing David]

This thought comes about from reading the history of science where very brilliant people are reduced to 'almost famous' because they were part of thge process but not the final theory.

Rutherford for example, the mentor of Bohr is sometimes portrayed as a bumler for proposing the' electrons are like raisins in pudding' theory of the atom. When if fact it was just a passing guess and he was a very strong mentor to Bohr.

So I guess it is about the monolithic presentation of science.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Is it possible for there to be more than one right thery or answer?

To what question? It makes a difference.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

David,

Is it possible for there to be more than one right thery or answer?

If I am understanding what you are asking, then I would say no. This is not so much a philosophical issue about the nature of reality, but rather a characteristic of the scientific method.

There is a principle in science, which essentially says that if you have two (or more) theories, and there is no experiment or observation that could, even in principle, distinguish between them, then they are, in fact, the same theory. And that furthermore, and of the details of those theories which distinguish them from each other, must be eliminated by Occam's razor.

What this means is that you will only ever have one "best" theory to describe a particular phenomena. There are no multiple, but different, right answers within science.

Dr. Stupid

 

[espritch]

There are no multiple, but different, right answers within science.

Although, curiously, there can often be multiple, but different, wrong answers within science.

 

[athon]

Here lies the problem with science - we can only discuss it by way of language. And spoken word is pesky, problematic and archaic.

All questions that are specific enough have one answer. Maths - the most precise of all languages - shows this. Most questions in mathematics have single answers, unless the rules stipulate otherwise.

When we use words to express our observations, inferences and queries, we leave room for connotations and biases. These open up for interpretation, which often means there is more than a single response based on 'which interpretation' is meant.

Athon

 

[Leif Roar]

Is it possible for there to be more than one right thery or answer?

Yes and no.


(Sorry - but the temptation proved too much for me.)

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Scientific Monism

Yes and no.


(Sorry - but the temptation proved too much for me.)

Thank you, you crack me up.

But seriuosly is not our current approach limited by just foolwing the herd?

I am not saying that woo-woo should rule, but that often tere is a lack of exploration of ideas, in QM a whole lot of bad ideas were tried and found wanting, but they led to the better ideas.

I realize a lot of this may be due to funding.

 

[Dancing David]

David,

What this means is that you will only ever have one "best" theory to describe a particular phenomena. There are no multiple, but different, right answers within science.

Dr. Stupid

So the approach itself narrows down the choices or the elimination of the false narrows the choices.

I may be wrong but I think that there has been a stifling of theretical imagination, that could be from the gains made in the last century. I wonder if scientists are having a harder time thinking out side the box, or are the answers just filling in the gaps and so the range of theory is diminishing?