Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Sure .. but I can't see that's a big problem.
|
It becomes a big problem when what's being accepted as "reality" through theory turns out to be a load of BS in the final analysis, and those that tow the accepted paradigm can't or won't change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
One of the basic principles in science is that reality is only ever as good as one's current model allows one to see.
|
True. However one should always remain sceptical of their current model, no matter what any of the observations and experiments tell you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
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.
|
Neither religion or science are about seeking the "truth", simply because neither would know what that really was. Truth is as subjective as any one individuals take on things, so in fact there is no absolute truth. Science is about understanding, religion is about following (blindly, in most cases).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
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.
|
If something is wrong, Craig, it's wrong

. No matter how you want to define "imprecise". Imprecision comes in a matter of degrees and even things which are correct, fundamentally, can still be imprecise in nature.
It's not so much as "truing up" the picture as it's a further gain of insight into whatever you're looking at. It could be the case of the old maxim "the more you find out, the less you realise you actually know".
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
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!
|
Agreed, wholeheartedly. But quite often it's the quantum leaps which send our science far ahead of where it would normally have ended up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
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.
|
Only in those that are hidebound by convention and orthodoxy does any quantum leap of "faith" bring about a "loss of confidence". Mainly because they're not good enough to make those jumps and advance in other directions. However, you are correct for stating that sometimes a jump can be deleterious, if it's truly going off into cloud cuckoo land. Closed minded behaviour is not by definition automatic, unconscious or unthinking. On the contrary, it is usually deliberate and very conscious. And don't for once think that mainstream science isn't riddled with that sort of malady. It is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
There is also plenty of scope for a balance.
|
Yeah, but not next to the scope. It might jam up the mount if it gets caught under one of the axes

Or, you could use the metaphorical balance to weigh up your theories

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
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
|
Agreed.