Re: [Phys-l] Another alternative theory horror

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 08/30/2011 03:49 PM, David Marx wrote:
> The 
> example I give is that a high school friend once explained fossils and their age via carbon dating as 
> being put there by the devil to test our faith. 

Said friend is not alone.  See also e.g.:
  http://conservapedia.com/Dinosaur


>  I explain that over time, we 
> correct our models until in the end there is one remaining model for the given phenomenon.

Slight nitpick:  We are not necessarily restricted to "one" remaining
model.  Commonly there are multiple models with overlapping coverage.  
This is where the correspondence principle comes in.
  Physical optics says that geometric optics is OK in certain limits.
  Quantum mechanics says that classical mechanics is OK in certain limits.
  Special relativity says that non-relativistic mechanics is OK in certain limits.
  General relativity says that the flat-spacetime model is OK in certain limits.
  You can do chemical reactions neglecting nuclear reactions in certain limits.
  Et cetera.  Other examples abound.

The point is that although imperfect models are /sometimes/ forced on us 
by our ignorance, there are other times when we merrily choose imperfect 
and/or restricted models for convenience.

This is important to this thread, because there are some folks (students 
and otherwise) who are looking for absolute truth.  Science generally 
does not provide absolute truth, but rather provides excellent ways of 
getting through life, solving practical problems in the absence of
absolute truth.

The folks who want absolute truth will turn away from science and turn 
to someone who will tell them what they want to hear.  This is not a
winning strategy in the long run, but sometimes they get away with it
in the short run.