The Truthfulness of Scientific Theories - Essay Example

The Truthfulness of Scientific Theories Number Department Introduction For this essay there will be a critical discussion on if any of the scientific theories are true, w hat makes the theories true and the credibility and believability of these theories. The discussion will also look at why people are so reliant on them, even if the theories are not true. The discussion will also analyse how it is possible not to believe in scientific theories yet in everyday life, people depend on even the most basic technologies that science has produced or shaped, first through theory and then practically. In the philosophy of science there are great interests to examine claims of truth and facts. Theories are a very important part and basis of any research in science. It is reliant on multiple trial and error experiments. Once a theory is made by a researcher, it is only right until another theory is bought forward to successfully dispute it. Basically, a proven theory is only one when it has survived all the plausible counterarguments. A theory gives people details on the examinations and methods of investigations that were expended to bring it about. There are many famous theories such as the theory of Evolution and Quantum Mechanics theory, among others. Because of these and many other theories, the human civilisation has come a long way with knowledge and enlightenment. Therefore, a theory is detailed information on observations, tests and reasoning that have been made concerning a specific topic or concept. Scientific theories have to be supported by sensible and examined facts. There is a clear difference between facts and theories. Facts can be observed and measured and theories on the other hand explain these facts and give meaning to them. Theories can be good, bad, or uninteresting. The researcher has to gather all the factual evidence, or else, his theory may simply lack credibility. Therefore, it is vital that these theories are peer reviewed. This gives other scientists the chance to assess their findings and give their judgment on the theory. A good example of a theory would be the Newton’s theory of gravity. This theory has been used in accordance to other theories. This means that it can be applied to different ranges of scientific situations. A good theory would contain a wide range of hypotheses that are able to be tested separately. Theories are the basis of expanding our scientific knowledge and gathering all the information for practical uses. Over many years, scientists have used theories in order to invent even the smallest of technologies and to find cure for diseases. A few believe that theories end up becoming laws but many others counter-argue that theories and laws are different from each other and have separate roles. A law is described as method that is always correct every time it is tested. Laws do not explain why they are true and right, are self-manifest and true. However, a theory holds its explanation to observations that are collected during experiments. Thus, even though laws and theories are both part of the scientific process, they are two very different phases. Theories can never be certain and have the final word, though they are a detailed explanation, based upon many trials and tests. A theory is still a theory in the end, but just a very well represented argument or explanation. Hence, a theory can be accurate but only to a certain extent- never a hundred percent accurate. For this reason above, this makes people puzzled at the fact that no matter how advanced they have become or will continue to become, they will truly never be fully convinced of the natural universe and the physics that drive the natural universe. This is because, there will always be a chance that there is something out there that has not yet been unveiled. There is always going to be the uncertainty of knowing the full truth because the future can unfold a newer, unknown and unexplained phenomenon. So, do people trust scientific theories? Karl Popper, an Austrian-British philosopher in 1934 postulated that science had the ability to conquer the challenge of induction with falsification. He divulged that science is distinguishable from pseudo-science since all scientific theories can be debunked. In this light, it is held that a theory holds as true, until it is successfully and conclusively debunked. Nevertheless, he contends that in this case, it is impossible and needless to assume that a scientific theory is infallible. Science makes novel predictions, though they may not be used to construct and prop up a theory or accurately predict new phenomena. It is against this backdrop that scientific realists maintain that the crux of science is to establish the truth, while scientific claims are predicated upon the truth. The most plausible argument in favour of scientific antirealism was made across by Larry Landan an American philosopher, in 1981. Larry’s antirealism argument is most commonly known as pessimistic meta-induction. Landan contended that people lack concrete reasons to hold on to the existence of theoretical entities. By the expression theoretical entities, it is meant, objects that are invisible to the naked eye. For this reason, it is held that history is replete with scientific theories that were later debunked. Up to the moment, Newtonian physics have been shown to be consistently successful. For instance, Newton made some assumptions which are in tandem with the theory of general relativity. The import of this is that Newton’s is presently considered as being amiss. On this account, people are also of the opinion that the theory of relativity is also wrong. Some are also going to the extent of surmising that all current theories of science are somewhat wrong. Again, in 1984, an American philosopher by the name of Richard Boyd contended that scientific theories are seldom abandoned as a whole. Succeeding theories normally contain or carry certain aspects of their antecedents. Henry Poincare, a French philosopher in 1905 pointed out that the structure of succeeding theories carry out a limited trace of preceding theories. This explains why less credible theories can still make accurate predictions, according to Poincare. For instance, Newton’s theory is considered as a limiting case of Einstein’s theory. To this extent, if people are savvy with the idea that this is the manner in which scientific theories have progressed, then they also have a reason to believe that it will be miraculous for a successful theory to be overthrown without it being referenced against its successor. This is akin to arguing that it will be “unnatural” for science to be successful outside the containment of some aspects of the truth or the truth in its entirety. Perhaps people can never be certain that science tells them the truth about the world, but if they accept that  they do not even know if the external world exists, then this is not too much of a surprise, and should not prevent humanity from trying to understand the universe they are presented with, as best as they can. History shows humanity that the best tool to further its understanding has always been science. Thomas Kuhns Writings Contain Three Different Versions of This Idea Theory of Perceptual Loading Kuhn took such studies to indicate that things do not look the same to observers with different conceptual resources. Theory of Semantic Loading Kuhn argued that theoretical commitments exert a strong influence on observation descriptions, and what they are understood to mean (Kuhn 1962, 127ff). If so, proponents of a caloric account of heat will not describe or understand descriptions of observed results of heat experiments in the same way as investigators who think of heat in terms of mean kinetic energy or radiation. They might all use the same words (e.g., ‘temperature’) to report an observation without understanding them in the same way. Theory of Salience Kuhn claimed that if Galileo and an Aristotelian physicist had watched the same pendulum experiment, they would not have looked at or attended to the same things. The Aristotelian paradigm would have required the experimenter to measure “…The weight of the stone, the vertical height to which it had been raised, and the time required for it to achieve rest” (Kuhn 1992, 123) “...and ignore radius, angular displacement, and time per swing” (Kuhn 1962, 124). These last words were salient to Galileo because he treated pendulum swings as constrained circular motions. The Galilean quantities would be of no interest to an Aristotelian who treats the stone as falling under constraint toward the centre of the earth (Kuhn 1962, 123). Thus, Galileo and the Aristotelians would not have collected the same data. (Absent records of Aristotelian pendulum experiments that people can think of this as a thought experiment.) Science is nothing more than recorded observations of phenomena within the observers’ own scope of reality. These observations either lead into a predictable pattern, or they do not. When a pattern is formed, then a theory is formed. If the theory ever fails, then it is either revised, or no longer a theory.  Theories form the foundation for all the technological progress of mankind- all the way back to the wheel. However, the science method at that point was obviously much cruder, and not truly established. Just as Dennett (1996, pp. 75-84) contends, one can think of the same thusly. A car exists and operates in man’s own scope of reality, and on a given set of theories. When that car breaks down, the observer has three options. The first option would be to ask a being outside his scope of reality to fix it for him, or to reveal to him the problem. The second option would be to throw it away and get a different one, though this is an extremely poor use of resources. The third option would be to apply the theories that govern how the car runs, and determine the part of the theory that is not being met. This would then be followed with fixing that problem so that all the rules of the theory are met, and the observer has a running car again.  However, consciousness in general, while vaguely observable, does not have any definite behaviour or patterns upon which theories can be based. This is at least not yet. Hence, the gap between science and consciousness and spirituality exists. By the term consciousness, it is meant, an individual beings self-awareness and subjectivity (Wenham, 1995, pp. 114-24).  According to Harlen (2009, pp. 123-127), furthermore, our spiritual beings do not have any observable phenomena upon which any theory can be based, with any sort of rationale. Science simply does not have a way to observe spirituality. This is why spirituality and religion remain the great mystery of the universe. Man is still grappling with his point of origin and his purpose on this planet.   One cannot be sure which the more foolish expectation is: for science to answer these questions or for a being outside man’s scope of existence to step back in and explain it ditto the solution number one in car example.  Open-Ended Question Remains Open Ended For the Rest of Time If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth? In 1666, Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravity. This was one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone could see, Newtons theory was ``the Truth. During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to test Newtons theory. These observations uncovered some slight discrepancies. Albert Einstein proposed his theories of Relativity which explained the newly observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einsteins theory is ``the Truth. Therefore, how can the Truth change? The answer is that it the truth has not. The Universe is still the same as it ever was. When a theory is said to be ``true, it means that it agrees with all known experimental evidence. However, even the best of theories have, time and again, been shown to be incomplete: though they might explain a lot of phenomena using a few basic principles, and even predict many new and exciting results. Eventually, new experiments (or more precise ones) show a discrepancy between the workings of nature and the predictions of the theory. In the strictest of sense, this means that the theory was not ``true after all. However, the fact remains that the theory is a very good approximation to the truth, at least as far as a certain type of phenomena is concerned. When an accepted theory cannot explain some new data (which has been confirmed), the researchers working in that field strive to construct a new theory. This task gets increasingly more difficult as man’s knowledge increases, for the new theory should not only explain the new data, but also all the old ones: a new theory has, as its first duty, to devour and assimilate its predecessors. Hempel (1966, pp. 34-51) contends that one other note about truth is that science does not make moral judgments. Anyone who tries to draw moral lessons from the laws of nature is treading on a very dangerous ground. Evolution in particular seems to suffer from this. At one time or another, the theory of Evolution seems to have been used to justify Nazism, Communism, and every other -ism in between. These justifications are all completely bogus. Similarly, anyone who says `that Evolution theory is evil because it is used to support Communism (or any other -ism) has also strayed from the path of logic. Science, as people know it, is not just some body of facts.  It is a detailed process of observation, experimentation, interpretation, review and even a little bit of luck and chance. Unlike a linear list of instructions, it is an ongoing, iterative process that can jump to any other step in the process, as illustrated at Berkley’s “Understanding Science” webpage.  This is how science should be and usually is, taught. Unfortunately, it is impossible for every teacher in every school to reproduce every experiment for their students to have a firsthand account of the evidence.  This means that in almost all classrooms, there is a degree of memorising facts to understand particular concepts.  So, to an extent, one might say that the teachers and students need to have some faith in the publisher to the effect that that those facts being presented are real, and the other scientists who reviewed the research are also legitimate (Popper, 2002 pp. 90-93). However, observers do manage to continue advancing despite of this.  Leaps and bounds in technologies and scientific research are made by building upon previously vetted and accepted research.  Every generation keeps learning newer technologies and up to date, research on earlier works in their field of education.  Sometimes, these new leaps and bounds may produce new evidence that causes people to re-evaluate their previous findings.  Nevertheless, this is still a part of science- an ongoing and dynamic process that continues to bring new questions and answers. Therefore, personally, I do not believe in science.  Maybe someone could say that he believes science.  However, for sure, I accept the evidence produced through and by science and that its findings may someday change. Nevertheless, I wonder about others’ persuasions about since. References Dennett, D.C. (1996), Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Penguin, Harmondsworth Harlen, W. (2009), The Teaching of Science in Primary Schools, Routledge, London & Qualter Hempel, C.G. (1966), Philosophy of Natural Science, Prentice-Hall, London Kuhn, T. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago Popper, K. (2002), Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Routledge, London Wenham, M. (1995), Understanding Primary Science: Ideas, Concepts and Explanations, Paul Chapman, London Read More