how do we know scientific truth is accurately describing our reality?

Question

Here me out.

Our scientific assumptions have changed over time, in paradigm shifts. For example, at one time it was logical to believe the world was flat, since it did not contradict the scientific truths they had back then (the curvature of the earth did not effect them). Now we 'know' the world is round, because it coincides with our current scientific truth. A round earth theory is easy for us to accept since it is visual, intuitive and reasonable in our minds.

But now the frontier of science is much more abstract and not as intuitive. Before, atoms were seen as the smallest unit of matter, then it was realized that they were made of protons, neutrons and electrons, then it was realized those contain quarks..and now the fundamental units might possibly be strings.

At first, the world was seen to follow the simple Aristotelian physics, then Newton came and developed a new way of looking at the world. People forgot about the old view and adopted the new view. After hundreds of years of improving that Newtonian view, Einstein came along and scrapped Newton's view, and presented his new view of reality, based on relativity. Now, there are several competing views on how to describe our reality the best (M theory, String theory etc.) How do we choose what we believe to be truth about our reality? How do we know another theory will not be proposed afterwards? Does newer, abstract, nonintuitive science take 'faith' into believing that it is true, that no other evidence will be found in the future to prove that it was false all along?

What if science showed us that world is not round, but something else? Could we so easily forget that we were ignorantly believing the wrong thing all this time, and so easily embrace this new truth? Isnt that a form of doublethink, as in 1984?

Generally, people today live as though the world follows the Newtonian model of physics, and any post-1900 scientific truths are taken at face value, and it sometimes seems to me as a familiar "leap of faith" that people take with religious truth.

btw, I am an atheist, and an engineering student, but these are questions that I have been pondering.

Answer 1

"How do we choose what we believe to be truth about our reality?"

It doesn't matter what we choose to believe. Nature just doesn't care. If our model works, that is all that matters.



"How do we know another theory will not be proposed afterwards?"

Just know that it will, or we'll all be dead. When we stop re-interpreting what we know, we'll stagnate and die.



"Does newer, abstract, nonintuitive science take 'faith' into believing that it is true, that no other evidence will be found in the future to prove that it was false all along?"

Heavens no. You *must* be an engineer. When someone proposes a new theory, *everyone* tries to tear holes in it. Do you remember "cold fusion" or the supposed success in cloning reported by the Koreans a few years back? No one (except the press) accepted that, the scientific community climbed all over it. Science is an antagonistic discipline. Not because they are mean (or just that they must publish or perish), but because we don't have access to Reality... except by testing, retesting, and challenging. Would you walk out on a bridge that was of a new design, one that had never been done before? We *have* to.



"What if science showed us that world is not round, but something else? Could we so easily forget that we were ignorantly believing the wrong thing all this time, and so easily embrace this new truth? Isnt that a form of doublethink, as in 1984?"

It will do all that and more. And know that just as Newton's gravitation is still used today, even though it is wrong, so will some of the silly theories we use today be wrong and still used. Because frankly, they'll be a lot easier to solve... than whatever we end up with.



btw, I am an agnostic, and an engineer.

Answer 2

The scientific method is based on skepticism not faith. Every scientific hypothesis can be questioned at any time and any new ideas must be accompanied by an experiment that will verify them. Nature itself is considered the ultimate authority. Science discards those theories that do not agree with Nature. New ideas do not rip apart everything we know. Its called a paradigm shift not a paradigm earthquake. Believing that the earth is flat worked fine for surveyors and travelers and even map makers. It didn't really become a problem until people started sailing in the open seas and needed to figure out where they were. That the earth is really round and not flat does not make a huge amount of difference to the common man. But it does explain some things that didn't agree with the flat earth believers.

Answer 3

We have to bring in the concept of model. We create a model in our minds, like math, that allows us to describe what we see around us. That's valid in the way that language is. It works for us. But we don't claim that the word "chair" or "chaise" is a property of the chair - we even recognize that a chair itself is only a chair in our minds. A fish would not recognize the arrangement of wood and fabric as anything.



So it is with all our knowledge. We create and share, sort of, our models of the universe with each other - all the while never even knowing how "blue" paints on each other's mental screens - just that we all are taught to say "blue" when that wavelength of light strikes our retinas.



And knowledge itself is nothing more than a log. We have seen gravity pull matter together for as long as we've been paying attention. So we declare that to be a "law". Then we observe that when we hold a match to paper it ignites, so we "explain" combustion. We don't know why anything happens or its true nature. We only observe that when this happens, it is immediately followed by that. We delcare it to be a cause and effect. But all we can really say is, well, so far it has always done that - at least here locally.



Gravity could stop this morning at 11:21.



Still, it's useful to "know" how to drive a car to go get a six pack of beer while contemplating this -

Answer 4

How do we know scientific truth is accurately describing our reality?



~~~ There is no such thing as "scientific truth"!

Science deals in tentative theories, subject to change, at any time, or obsolescence, depending on any new data/evidence!

It is 'religion' that deals with 'beliefs' (of 'truth').





btw, I am an atheist, and an engineering student



~~~ Depending where you are in the 'student' path, you should know this already!



Newtonian physics is mostly obsolete, made so by QM! It takes a long time for new understanding to 'trickle down' to the 'streets', as there is such a long way to trickle!



" Again and again some people in the crowd wake up,

They have no ground in the crowd,

And they emerge according to much broader laws.

They carry strange customs with them

And demand room for bold gestures.

The future speaks ruthlessly through them."

Rainer Maria Rilke



"Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past."

-Maurice Maeterlinck

Answer 5

We don't. Science and the philosophy it's based on takes experience as the measure and test of what we know. There is always the possibility of error. There is nothing that can be done about this except to get more data, continue to refine and test our ideas, so that's what we do.



Ultimately of course it's not even possible to really prove that any of the data we have is describing any reality at all. But again science and the philosophy it's based on take experience as the measure and test of all our useful knowledge. There is nothing else to work with, so we have to work with that. If it all turns out to be fantasy later, then just as well. But in the meantime there's nothing else to go on, so we mutually agree to assume it's coming from reality and not some communal hallucination or other.



This is just practical thinking as far as I'm concerned, but I think it is important to recognize the limits human knowledge.

Answer 6

You're mixing theories with facts. There is absolutely no room left for doubt in matters like the shape of the earth. If we were wrong about it, planes and satellites wouldn't go where they were meant to and so on and so on. Our technology has given us a much greater ability to test our hypotheses. Theories such as string theory are certainly debatable, but that's not considered a universal truth. Most of us simply file such things under "conjecture, still being explored." Evolution has enough evidence to be called fact by anyone who actually studies it. The Big Bang does not.. yet.

Answer 7

Adding anything aside of truth is superfluous since it can neither be greater, nor lesser than itself; making it relative to human affairs such as science and religion is fallacious and unsound.



Also, science provide factual statement and to quote the character of Indiana Jones "Archaeology is about facts, not truth; for those seeking truth the class of professor ... is down the hallway." Scientists do reason about facts, to explain them and understand them and, doing so, they shall as philosophers admit the plausibility of their mistakes. Hence, the answers they provide is only partially validated reasoning which may in fact be false. By partially validated, I mean to say that an observation as a given conclusion limits the acceptable answers and if they are to be themselves, only one shall remain; yet, it often happens that many satisfies one postulate and it is by the addition of such postulates that logic sees to grasp truth. Thereby, it is a process of selective exclusions that it works and not of inclusions.





This ontological mistake aside, your critic is well founded; why are so many people assuming it to be right when it could pretty well be wrong; after all, humans are making them. And, then, as I stated above, they shall be humble about what they think they know instead of claiming the absoluteness of their ideas.

Answer 8

You are one of the few on here that I have come across that know M-theory and know how to write in full paragraphes. Let me just read this, and see what your trying to get at because it doesn't seem like you simplify it at any point...



When evidence comes about, that is sense data that we can classify with sound representation, things that we previously know shift, as in a pardigm shift, and science allows for this to happen.



"Science is as conservative as is the world we experience." -- Josh Alfred.

Answer 9

science is evolving as our brains evolve. That's what i think. Isn't it so obvious?

we may never be certain of our reality, but if life ends at death then who cares right?

i think maybe subconsciously we know we are more than just individuals. We are the collective conscious and live on after death through other people. Other wise why would we go through the trouble of finding out something that ultimately does nothing for us in this lifetime.

just where my brain leads me.

Answer 10

Science is means, there is a proof and it is subject to verification by human intelligence. There is a valid reason to believe.That is my feeling.

Answer 11

an answer is we dont know if any of this is true thats y we keep looking and proving each other wrong