I’d like to open up a debate on a topic that frequently divides opinions in the philosophy of science: non-empirical science.
When we think of science, the first thing that usually comes to mind is the traditional scientific method: observation, experimentation, and tangible empirical evidence. However, major advancements and entire fields operate at levels that challenge this strict definition.
I would like to propose three points for our reflection:
Theoretical Physics and Cosmology: Theories like String Theory or the Multiverse are mathematically consistent, but at the moment, they remain beyond our capacity for empirical testing. Should they still be considered science?
Mathematics and Logic: Mathematics is the language of science, yet its foundations are purely conceptual and a priori. If the bedrock of all science is non-empirical, where do we draw the line?
The Limits of Scientism: By demanding that everything must be empirically proven today, are we limiting our capacity for hypothesis and discovery?
If absolute empiricism is the only criterion for truth, how should we classify these theoretical branches that shape our understanding of the universe?
Curiosity is part of science. Observation is part of science. Hypothesis is part of science. Testing is part of science. Theory is part of science. Measurement (including mathematics) is part of science.
Science is a process that utilizes multiple methods and tools.
String theory (which is actually a theoretical framework rather than a scientific theory) is no less real science than any other inquiry using scientific methods and tools.
Theoretical Physics is a key pilar of science, but it must eventually be grounded in experimental physics/empirical evidence, otherwise it would be no different to theology, and would go off down vast rabbit holes of make believe.
We would like to think the universe operates in a nice logical and intuitive way, and so with our logical minds we would like to say we can deduce it all, but then some nutter comes up with ideas such as GR or the uncertainty principle, or quantum tunnelling, or quantum entanglement or wave/particle duality, rather than dismiss it all as complete bollocks, they do some tests and find out that our classical physics ideas are bollocks and need to be thrown out the window and now we have no choice but to believe the nutters. Well the nutters are now considered brilliant minds and we keep scratching our heads but accept the Truth.
I wish that “theory” were not thrown around casually (usually by science journalists). String theory ought better be termed “the string hypothesis” at this point.
I would like @Druso to stipulate to the following:
There’s a difference between theory in the colloquial sense of “I thought of an idea about x” and theory in the scientific sense of “a tested and accepted explanatory framework that has survived rigorous and systematic attempts to disprove it”.
Just so we have our terms straight. If that doesn’t happen then subsequent discussion very quickly becomes pointless.
Anything that represents a falsifiable hypothesis should be considered a scientifically valid hypothesis. String “theory” and the Multiverse are at this point proposed hypotheses. I am personally uncomfortable considering them falsifiable and therefore scientific in the absolute sense. Others here may have a better command of those subject areas than I do, and so may differ.
Mathematics builds on some basic axioms but has proven to so accurately model reality that it is, as you say, the language of science in a sense. This strongly suggests that the axioms are true and reliable.
Math is a formal science. It doesn’t rely on falsification and a formal proof is not subject to revision. However it has proven utility and accuracy. We wouldn’t be having this conversation via inconvenienced electrons if it didn’t.
There’s no such demand. Things don’t have to be proven today. You just can’t claim knowledge without the proof. The real issue is that you have to accept that it’s okay not to know the answer to any given question, until you do. Ignorance is not a unthinkable or deficient or wrong. However, jumping to unsupportable conclusions is not a Good Thing.
Simplified: Theoretical physics and experimental physics go hand in hand and feed off and inspire each other. Theories predict stuff, experiments either verify predictions (in which case it’s a big win for theory, which moves further on), or it falsifies theory (in which case theorists take a step back and rework their calculations), or the result is neutral, in which case more work needs to be done.
It’s a matter of definition whether one should call it physics or applied mathematics. And they are beyond empirical testing presently. What tomorrow brings, we do not know. In any case, the fields are useful in that they interact with more theoretical mathematics, adapting new tools from the tool chests of theoretical mathematics to physics. And also the other way around, problems in theoretical physics inspire new mathematical tools to be developed. Even though string theory or multiverse cosmology at present can be neither verified nor falsified, they (or similar theoretical frameworks) have their own intrinsic value as explorative theoretical frameworks. So yes, they are definitely sciences, although at present not empirically verifiable.
Analogically, number theory and the mathematics of big prime numbers used to be a pure mathematical discipline that noone really saw any big practical application for other than doing mathematics for mathematics own sake. Then suddenly number theoretical approaches to practical cryptography (huge prime numbers, discrete logarithms, elliptic curves, etc.) came along, and now these methods form the backbone of Internet information security.
Mathematics and logic are of course not natural sciences. That being said, they can be viewed as the science of abstraction, deductive reasoning, modelling, and calculation. Thus, they are the problem solving theoretical branch of many other sciences.
Your premise is false, as there is no such line that can be drawn. The transition from theoretical and abstract mathematics to practical computational problem solving in engineering is not discrete, but a continuum. Thus, such a line does not exist.
According to Google AI… Scientism is the ideological belief that natural science is the only valid way to acquire knowledge and truth. It asserts that empirical, testable science is vastly superior to—or completely excludes—other disciplines like philosophy, ethics, the arts, and religion.
But Scientism and science are two different things. The first is an ideological belief and the second is a method and discipline for studying the natural universe that does not exclusively line up with scientism. So the question, “Can science go beyond empiricism?” is a loaded one if scientism is sneaked into it under the radar.
So what is the real thread title here? Is it actually question about science proper or is it a question with an agenda about scientism?
Also, empirical science doesn’t prove things. Mathematics, which deals in absolutes, is the only branch of the sciences that proves things. All of the other branches of empirical science yield evidence, not proofs.
Agreed. Science tells us how to do things, not whether we should. The latter is the province of philosophy and ethics. IMO the only valid charge that someone is advocating “scientism” is when they are attempting to extend science into areas it isn’t designed for.
As to the charge that scientism is also the idea that science is the only valid way to acquire knowledge and truth, I’d say that I’m all ears if anyone knows of a better way. As I’ve said before though I think it’s ultimately a question of epistemology. What is our theory of knowledge. How do we accurately acquire it? What must it be grounded in?
Science (and philosophy, ethics, etc) are only tools to those ends.
Theists will often argue that one acquires knowledge from holy books or other divine revelation (their holy book, of course!) and that one assents to this knowledge not based on observation or investigation but via religious faith. That questioning this knowledge is the cardinal sin of doubt. I reject that as a failed epistemlogy. It is uncritical acceptance of assertions, perhaps informed by one’s feelings or needs.
There’s also the question of how to reconcile asserted dogma with scientific conclusions that disagree with it. With only one exception I’m aware of, religious leaders will affirm their asserted dogma must be correct when the two are in conflict, or in the alternative, some more liberal theists will retreat to metaphorical / allegorical / less literal interpretations of scripture in an attempt to salvage the situation.
In my experience theists such as yourself are rarely interested in questions about science’s remit, what it can do and what it can’t just for the sake of intellectual curiousity. They usually introduce these questions because…
A)
They don’t like the current status quo and would like to change it in favour of their religious beliefs.
or…
B) They introduce questions like this as a prelude to something else.
So what’s the real deal here? Would you like to be forthcoming about your reasons for starting up this thread? Beyond the outward appearance of mere intellectual curiosity, that is?
It’s horses for courses, most of the time, in our everyday lives, we simply believe things we are told by others. For example, if my wife told me she got up early, baked a batch of cookies and ate them, I would simply believe her. I wouldn’t insist on evidence. It would be theoretically possible that she snuck out and had sex with the neighbour. If I were worried, I could go and see if there is some residual heat in the oven.
But if I hadn’t been having sex with my wife for months and she said she was recently pregnant but it wasn’t through cheating, it was an immaculate conception, I wouldn’t believe her.
From my perspective if a person says something that is mundane, has little to no consequence and that person is sane and is cognitively well and has a reputation of being truthful, I’d typically just believe them. If they said something that is extraordinary, I’d be interested, if it was extraordinary and of large consequence, I’d be putting effort in to find evidence. If the person was not sane, cognitively impaired or known to lie or exaggerate, I’d just ignore their cliam.
Yes, the consequentiality of the truth claim definitely comes into it. Extraordinary and/or consequential claims require extraordinary evidence. Mundane and/or inconsequential claims may not even get scrutiny, if whether the claim is true doesn’t matter or isn’t of immediate interest. Or one might default to believing low-consequentiality claims from sources you have the experience of being trustworthy.
I don’t think science is demanding that, I think a more accurate assertion would be that this part of the methodology provides the best most reliable results that help us understand reality. However part of the method must also involve starting with unknowns, and creating hypotheses to try and understand.
It’s not a scientific theory yet, and the idea we abandon what we don’t, or are struggling to understand is the antithesis of science.
Not sure I follow, the word absolute seem redundant there, but empiricism in the scientific method demonstrably works, as do theoretical starting points, it’s not a choice between them, you seem to be offering a false dichotomy here, unless I’ve misunderstood?
Exactly.
Well some people see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear, I understand that some of the metaphors scientists use are abused by people who have an agenda, “fine tuning” is a sound example, but people with no scientific credentials or even experience could understand the phrase is a metaphor if they were interested in the truth, and not hijacking phrases science throws around for their own biases.
That is certainly my understanding, but I am far from au fait on the topic.
Ah good, I thought I’d made a huge mistake.
Exactly…
I am not sure why this is being directed specifically at atheists either?
The first part is exactly right, the evidence needs to be sufficient to allay our doubts, thus if the claim were unlikely or extraordinary, then the evidentiary standard would rise to match it. The second part might be a reason to exercise caution, but I’d say the source of the claim is less important to its veracity, than the evidence that supports it.
Theoretical science is useful because it allows us to ask questions that otherwise wouldn’t have a framework within which to exist. Just because the answers cannot be empirically tested in the present, is no hindrance to the advancement of knowledge, because the intent is that methods of empirical test will be devised when our knowledge expands accordingly.
This isn’t a problem for people who paid attention in class.
Let me cite a useful example that illustrates the principle.
I have a textbook in my collection, “Theoretical Mechanics” by Murray R. Spiegel,McGraw-Hill, SI (Metric) Edition, ISBN 07 084357 0.
Turning to Chapter 5, “Central Forces and Planetary Motion”, which begins on page 116, there’s a nice little exercise on page 127, namely exercise 5.15, which asks the student to determine the equation of a central force, given a specific orbit. The resulting equation for that orbit takes the form F = k/r⁵.
Now, if someone were to propose that real gravity obeyed that law, then this would be refutable in an instant. Because the orbit in question passes through the origin of the coordinate system, and, by extension to a real world system, would see any object moving on such an orbit crash into the parent star before one orbit was completed. Since this clearly doesn’t happen to actual observed planets, which instead have elliptical orbits with the star at one focus, we KNOW that gravity does NOT obey a law of the form F = k/r⁵.
Indeed, Newton found that gravity, if treated as a classical force (I’ll leave relativistic complications out as they’re beyond the scope of this exposition), obeys a law that takes the form F=k/r². The precise details are covered in more depth in the textbook.
But the point I’m making, is that scientists ALL operate on that basis I cited above - that real world data places CONSTRAINTS upon the sort of ideas that are viable as explanations for our surroundings. In the case of gravity, an infinite number of equations are thrown out by the observational data, and we’re left with G=M₁M₂/r².
Furthermore, once those constraints have converged upon a particular solution derived from known observational data, we can then use that knowledge to TEST if the solution we’ve found is particular to one system or one instance, or is much more widely and generally applicable.
There’s also the matter of applied mathematics being DEscriptive rather than PREscriptive (treating it otherwise is a mistake made by the usual suspects, for entirely predictable reasons).
This is one of the reasons that theoretical work is useful - it allows us to alight upon proposed “solutions” to a problem, that can then be checked to see if they are realistic options.
In the past, ideas about what happened before the Big Bang existed purely as speculation. The regulars here know in advance what I’m about to unleash, namely that Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have changed this with their work in the field.
The braneworld collision model they present, for the instantiation of the observable universe in its current form, possesses three elegant features. Namely:
[1] It provides a mechanism for the donation of energy to the newly instantiated universe, facilitating subsequent matter synthesis;
[2] It eliminates the singularity problem from standard Big Bang cosmology;
[3] It provides a testable prediction, namely that the power spectrum of primordial gravitational waves will take a specific form, with the graph skewed towards short wavelengths.
Indeed, [3] above is one of the reasons scientists have been labouring diligently, to produce operational gravitational wave detectors, precisely so that they can test this prediction, once they’ve learned how to distinguish between primordial gravitational waves and gravitational waves of more recent origin.
The moment they learn to do this, the requisite tests will be conducted. Furthermore, if those tests reveal a power spectrum that matches the Steinhardt-Turok prediction, then Steinhardt & Turok walk away with the Nobel Prize for Physics.
So here we have a model of pre-Big-Bang cosmology that contains a testable prediction, and one that scientists are gearing up to test directly. As far as I’m aware (any actual cosmological physicists who know better, please come here and inform me!), this prediction is unique to Steinhardt and Turok’s model.
Consequently, any test of this prediction will either validate or falsify that model, and we have made a significant advance in our understanding of the universe.
As a corollary, even speculative theoretical musings can turn out to be testable, and therefore constitute science.
The whole point of mathematics is to investigate abstract structures. That said investigation happens to be applicable to examining real world relationships, is a subject that has kept genuine philosophers awake long into the night. A lot of hot air has been expended over this, usually be the sort of people who want reality to conform to their fantasies, but genuine progress on this topic has been much more limited, and accompanied by far less noise.
Oh dear, the “scientism” nonsense has been erected. Yawn.
“Scientism” is the favourite go-to piece of apologetics, for those mythology fanboys who suffer from intellectual penis envy, whenever scientists are successful at providing evidence for their postulates, in a manner that the apologetics brigade are hopelessly impotent to emulate.
Furthermore, anyone who, like myself, spent time studying pure mathematics, knows that there is a strict division between two categories of knowledge. Namely knowledge of abstract entities, which is the purview of disciplines such as pure mathematics, and knowledge of concrete entities, which is the purview of disciplines that rely upon observational data. No one who paid attention in class blurs that distinction. Real world entities are concrete, but relationships between them are abstract, even if those relationships happen to be instantiated by concrete interactions.
It isn’t. See above, None of which, of course, validates blind assertions from pre-scientific mythologies.
I’ve already solved your taxonomy problem for you above. Courtesy of the distinction between abstract and concrete. Next?
As long as we don’t go off on a paranormal gap filler, we should keep possibilities in mind. Just be able to separate fact from fantasy and don’t fall in love with your theories. Yes, perhaps scientific empiricism ain’t the answer to ALL things, but it’s a great tool to keep us on da straight and narrow! Dig it baby…wooo! (This is usually where a high five comes in)!
We have limited time in our lives and need to choose where best to spend our time. If a credible source is making an interesting claim, we are more likely to take them seriously, if a known liar or a person with known cognitive issues is making an interesting claim, we may be less likely to invest our precious time verifying that claim. e.g. An elderly lady 80y next door with alzheimers tells us her daughter visited her as a 10 year old. We don’t rush to verify that claim. We assume her cognitive issues are being cruel to her.
You mean I, not we, I just explained that’s not how I evaluate the veracity of claims. I am also happy to admit when I don’t know something.
We don’t need more analogies, I already said the evidentiary support for a claim is more important to me than the source of the claim, as this is the more reliable way to establish the veracity of claims. Just as scientific empricism has demonstrated.
What’s the status on the Steinhardt-Turok testable prediction, Calilasseia?
If you recall, back in 2014 there was a false alarm when the BICEP2 team thought they’d detected the signal of B-mode polarisation in the CMB, thus providing evidence in support of inflation.
Any news? Any observation programs up and running? I’m just an amateur astronomer interested in cosmology, but you seem to have your finger on the pulse.
OK, I am also happy to admit I don’t know something. I don’t know most things. But what I do know is that I have limited time, I can’t test and evaluate everything. Sorry I assumed limited time applies to you to. Maybe you have unlimited time and resources, I shouldn’t have presumed. My bad.
Hmmm, maybe I’ve missed the flow of the conversation. Didn’t realise we were talking about admitting that there is something you, or me or whomever, doesn’t know.
I was just talking about in general, when someone makes a claim, generallyI trust them, if the claim is mundaine and has little to no consequence, if it is a more interesting/fascinating or extraordinary claim, to me it does matter who is making the claim, as to whether I want to invest more time considering it, for example, if a fantastic claim comes from a reputable science journal, then I am interested to read more, if a fantastic claim comes from Answers in Genesis or the Flat Earth society or from a group of UFO fanatics, I’m much less interested in diving down the rabbit hole to evaluate if there is some substance there.
That’s not to say that they haven’t got some real substance, it’s just to say, I doubt they have substance and so I don’t deem it worth my time to check it out.
