Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robh
As Amir pointed out, a developed theory or model may not turn out to match reality.
|
Sure .. but I can't see that's a big problem.
One of the basic principles in science is that reality is only ever as good as one's current model allows one to see.
The idea that a 'reality' exists beyond this visibility provided by scientific models, in itself, can easily be distinguished as '
non-reality'. This is also a fundamental philosophical difference between seeking 'truth', and observing the physical world. It is also a dividing line between religion/faith fantasy, (whatever one calls it), and science.
The models are always incomplete and, in retrospect, they may have been wildly 'wrong', (I prefer 'imprecise'), .. but by following the process, successive approximations using feasible technologies and experimentation of the present, strangely enough, usually ends in 'truing up' the picture.
Successive approximations employing incremental steps over time, accumulates into a pile of verifiable knowledge .. and it works. Its not a weakness in science .. its a strength!
For me, it is clear that quantum leaps of faith, easily and immediately contributes towards a major widespread loss of confidence .. with all its deleterious implications. If this is done under the guise of 'Science', then Science cops the blame. This is the reason for a
perceived 'inflexibility', or lack of 'open-mindedness' in mainstream science. If there is a reason for it, then I maintain this
not the same as an automatic, unconscious, unthinking, close minded behaviour.
There is also plenty of scope for a balance.
Searching for the unknown will always require a component of 'faith'. This does
not have to preclude leaving verifiable evidence in one's wake, for future generations to build upon, however.
Cheers