"Well, science doesn't know everything!"

[DaveW]

But I don't have any decent links to hand. It would be just as easy for carrot to search than me.

Sure, but you brought it up, and who is to say any link he or I finds wouldn't just contradict you? It would be in your best interest to show us a link with your point of view.

 

[DaveW]

Entirely different scientific theories employing radically differing entities can explain a given unique macroscopic state of affairs. Which one characterises reality as it really is??

As I say this is not an easy subject. You need to read up on it. It's good stuff though.

I think I know which set of theories you are thinking about, but just to be sure, could you enighten us?

 

[scribble]

It would be just as easy for carrot to search than me.

Aye, only carrots are more in the habit of backing up the claims they make with logic and reason.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Sure, but you brought it up, and who is to say any link he or I finds wouldn't just contradict you? It would be in your best interest to show us a link with your point of view.

Well I haven't read anything on the philosophy of science on the Net. I haven't read this link but it might be ok
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/phil_sci_lecture00.html

 

[DaveW]

Well I haven't read anything on the philosophy of science on the Net. I haven't read this link but it might be ok
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/phil_sci_lecture00.html

I didn't read in that anything that said facts would ever change based on the theory. (I never thought they would, admittedly). Rather, it seemed more of a discussion on the philosophy of choosing the next theory that fits the observed phenomena (facts).

 

[carrot]

The safest way of phrasing this issue is that a new theory can force a new interpretation on a given set of observations, resulting in a new set of beliefs that people consider to be true beyond controversy.

Having waded through your entire post, I think this is pretty much what I said in my first post, without the bit about beliefs.

 

[drkitten]

Having waded through your entire post, I think this is pretty much what I said in my first post, without the bit about beliefs.

Yes, but I didn't use the word "fact," since Ian uses it to mean something different from what you did.

More pointedly, you're using the word "fact" incorrectly, since you use it to describe universals such as "a man cannot survive without a steady supply of oxygen." This is not a fact, it's a theory --- it could change if we found some other substance or method that substituted for oxygen. (Perhaps there's some odd subatomic particle with twice the charge of a proton, and we can build atom-like structure out of those.) That we have not yet found such a substance, that we are not actively looking for such a substance, and that we do not believe such a substance could exist is irrelevant to the question of whether or not such a substance does exist. One question -- the existence of such a substance -- is a factual one. The other -- whether or not we know of such a substance and take its possiblity seriously in making statements about the world --is a theoretical one.

 

[carrot]

Yes, but I didn't use the word "fact," since Ian uses it to mean something different from what you did.

More pointedly, you're using the word "fact" incorrectly, since you use it to describe universals such as "a man cannot survive without a steady supply of oxygen."

Eh? When did I say that? My analogy was about bacteria, and it was extremely vague. The "universal" you ascribe to me would be better stated as: "If my theory says that humans cannot survive without a steady supply of oxygen, and then I observe humans surviving without a steady supply of oxygen, I must alter my theory to account for this new evidence." (Or, these new facts, if you prefer.)

Let's go back to what Ian said:

Facts change depending on the theoretical interpretation we employ.

and I replied:

Only the interpretation changes. The facts remain the same.

I left out my analogy, since it only seems to confuse.

 

[drkitten]

Eh? When did I say that? My analogy was about bacteria, and it was extremely vague. The "universal" you ascribe to me would be better stated as: "If my theory says that humans cannot survive without a steady supply of oxygen, and then I observe humans surviving without a steady supply of oxygen, I must alter my theory to account for this new evidence." (Or, these new facts, if you prefer.)

I'm sorry, I misattributed a statement of Toastrider's to you. Please accept my apologies.

 

[carrot]

I'm sorry, I misattributed a statement of Toastrider's to you. Please accept my apologies.

Ah, no problem.

 

[RichardR]

It's true that science doesn't know everything. The problem is that people draw incorrect conclusions from this. They think the corollary is that anything they like the sound of, that hasn't been proven false, is worthy of consideration. That's false. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it might be true. That reason would usually be some evidence.

 

[JoH]

"Science doesn't know everything!"

Yes, these are hard to handle.

The problem is of course that, in order to adequately handle this, you would need to give your opponent a 'rational scientific method in 10 steps' course. Let alone going into the meaning of the words "know" and "everything". But you probably won't be able to keep his or her attention for that long.

If anything, I think it could be useful to point out that science does not even CLAIM it will ever know everything, and by nature also will never be ABLE to do it since every answer creates additional questions. Kinda a "multiplication of questions"

And that's the beauty of science: through the additional questions it generates, the world becomes more interesting and deeper. And it gives you perspective and modesty. The more you know, the more you know that you know very little.

So I would answer with something like:

"That is certainly true, but without science, you wouldn't even know what you DON'T know."

"Science doesn't know everything!"