I think we're talking past eachother slightly. And also getting a little caught up in the varying definitions of a word.
(Like 'rule' and 'law' and such which have specific scientific meanings, but also more general meanings that are difficult to describe in other, less ambiguous terms.)
Cowabungaa said:
CrystalShadow said:
It's based on basic observation of how science functions. Show me any scientific theory or hypothesis that would survive as a meaningful description of anything at all if it didn't follow a consistent set of rules.
Consistent rules of what? The theory itself? Science itself?
Think more fundamental than that. Think about what math and logic itself depends on.
But that's still quite different from saying one day the laws of gravity work by one set of rules, and the next, they suddenly have totally different rules. Then they change back again for no apparent reason.
All what I was trying to say is that, if empirical evidence shows that, then the scientific community will descend upon it like hungry hounds. Science does not state that the laws of gravity are fixed rules, science says that those rules are verified by repeated and constant observation. If, however, the observation changes (assuming it's constant and correct etc etc), then the scientific community is forced to revise the theory of gravity.
That's what I meant with change. Hypothesis and theories are constantly tested, and if they stop matching with repeated, empirical observation scientists are forced to change their hypothesis. And like that, theories get more and more refined, thanks to change.
I do understand what you meant by change. Unfortunately, I'm struggling to clearly describe
what
I meant in unambiguous terms.
Hypothesis and theory in the scientific sense are models of reality based on whatever evidence and observation has shown to be true up to that point.
Change in that sense means changing the model to better reflect observation.
But can you say that any such model can do anything useful without being based on a consistent, logical set of rules?
Sure, you can try to deduce scientifically what the cause of this change is. But in so doing you are presuming there is some pattern to this change.
(In other words, you are pre-supposing there is a rule that shows why things change. If no such rule can be found, the scientist is unlikely to conclude no such rule exists. Merely that they cannot identify what it is.)
No, rules and laws are formulated later on, they don't come first. Becoming a law, like the law of gravity, is like a Pokemon's last evolutionary stage. But that doesn't mean it can't change. Well it can't in Pokemon, but you get my point.
But do you get my point? Clearly not. You're referring to a 'law' in the scientific sense of the word. I specifically refer to 'rules' because this is a word not commonly holding any specific meaning in a scientific sense.
The fact that a scientific 'law' can change is neither here nor there, and has little to do with the point I've been trying to make, which is that a 'law' is a rule that defines some specific pattern observed.
Yes, science begins with observation, but tell me, what happens when the data seems to show a completely random result with no identifiable pattern at all?
I have literally never come across any scientific theory, law, hypothesis, or even idle speculation that didn't depend on the idea that there is (at least in theory) some identifiable rule or pattern underlying whatever the idea relates to.
You're viewing it the other way around; repeated observation has established a pattern in something, afterwards scientists try to explain what that pattern is all about.
Yes, but the over-riding assumptions is nonetheless that data which displays a pattern actually has a pattern, and isn't just a freak coincidence.
(Granted, if later evidence shows it
was just a freak coincidence, that's likely to result in reinterpreting what the results mean.)
Change is still a pattern if you can define a rule that describes it. I'm sure you'd find that if any scientific laws did just change randomly, scientists would try and deduce why - In other words, they'd be looking for a pattern or rule that describes how these changes come about.
It's the predictive power of these patterns and rules that dictates the utility of science.
Only if a pattern is observed and survives constant testing.
[/quote]
... Yes.
You know, I think I've deduced the real problem here. And you're more or less correct, it's at my end.
It's an easy thing to miss, and really I should know better (what with having been a physics student), but yes, I think I've deduced what I've done here...
There's two issues:
Firstly, I was (partially) dealing with the philosophical problems involved with deductive logic. (And since deductive logic is a significant portion of what science depends on, that means the inherent problems associated with it also have implications for science.)
- If you've ever looked at math sufficiently to deal with what an axiom is, you might also have a better understanding of the kind of problem I was referring to.
(for those of you unfamiliar with an axiom, it is basically the foundation of mathematics.
While you can 'prove' mathematical statements by reference to other mathematical statements, an axiom cannot really be proven. - This is muddled somewhat by the fact that not all axioms are
fundamental axioms, and thus can be broken apart into other mathematical statements, but ultimately an axiom is just something that's presumed to be true.
Thus, math takes the form of: Suppose axiom X and Y are true. Therefore...)
Secondly, I've managed to create added confusion due to tangential influences.
(Specifically, I'm somewhat confusing the beliefs held by many scientists with science itself).
The worst offenders in terms of causing this kind of confusion are the widely held notion of physicists that the rules of the universe should be 'beautiful' - (In other words, as simple as possible.)
This gets much, much worse when you hear a physicist describe anything to do with the 'creation' of the universe (like the big bang, or several other principles. - Don't even start on string theory - which, to date can't actually even be termed a scientific theory.)
Occam's razor also seems to be used to support statements in a way that makes some serious assumptions about the nature of reality.
(For one thing, it leads to people that somehow think that the simplest model
is reality, when in fact the preference for simplicity expressed by Occam's razor is a pragmatic issue to do with practical considerations rather than any dictate about which model of reality is 'true'.)
There are an overwhelming amount of statements made by large numbers of scientists which suggest they think of the rules and mathematics they are working with somehow reflect some inherent truth about the universe itself, rather than simply being models that happen to coincide with what happens around them sufficiently to be useful in making predictions.
But... What I've done here, clearly, (issues to do with logic itself aside), is somehow internalised the incorrect notion that:
"The beliefs held by scientists = science".
Which, while it might sort of make sense, isn't really all that accurate.
