| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Hi Ludwik,
I also read Wade's article.
I disagree; I don't think a meaningful distinction can be drawn between
fact, theory and law. For starters, Newton's laws are wrong but
Einstein's theory is correct. Kepler's laws are only approximate. So we
don't use these terms consistently (perhaps we should but it is too
late, we don't).
Second, facts are contingent on theory in at least two ways. The fact
that we observe current flow is contingent on our theories of how
ammeters and voltmeters work. There are few observations made today that
don't depend on starting with some assumed (theoretical) knowledge. This
is ok, we can't test everything at once so we assume some things are
true while we test other things. Theories also tell us where to look for
facts. We don't just go out and start measuring stuff to see if there is
some correlation somewhere. For example the data supporting black holes
only makes sense because we have a theory of black holes. We have to
know to look for gravitational lensing before we can discover the fact
that black holes exist. It doesn't make sense to try to separate facts
from theory.
I think Wade in the NYT book review was trying to get at how science can
be right at the same time that it can change over time. Here is a better
way to think about it. We are perfectly rational to believe (and I mean
really believe) that something is true if all the data supports it and,
upon trying to find counter evidence we find none (this is important-
finding data in support is often easier but one good counter example
destroys the theory). It is equally rational to change your mind if you
get better information. I really believe my breakfast cereal is
nutritious. Then I read in the news about a contamination problem and
change my mind. I am not being silly or irrational, rather I am being
very rational.
Now, any good scientific concept is fruitful- it suggests new ideas to
try. So sure, the testing process is never done but just because you can
think of some new test doesn't mean you should abandon the concept. In
the history of science we almost never abandon a theory or law until we
have something better to replace it. This also is rational; a well
established theory is worth keeping, even if it might suggest new ways
to test it.
We should believe (I mean really believe it is true) in evolution as the
best truth that is available. Until we have evidence to the contrary.
And it also makes sense to keep testing it, even while believing it is true.
Oh and hypothesis are a nice idea but I don't think very many scientists
actually operate that way. We start with something that looks
interesting or puzzling and start playing around with it; our intuition
outruns our rational mind at first. Usually after the fact we can come
up with a hypothesis but more often we start with a hunch or a dream or
an idea. The guy who discovered the benzene ring didn't have a
hypothesis initially- he dreamed of a snake rolling down a hill by
biting its tail and forming a hoop. But it doesn't matter where we get
ideas from (hypothesis or dreams). What matters is if we can back them
up with physical data and, after trying hard to knock them down, they
are still standing. I have noticed that biology papers tend to state a
formal hypothesis but I don't see this done in many physics papers.