Thread: The Scientific Method - Why Science is Truth

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Chemistry most definitely has changed, and pretty drastically in recent years. Case in point; just within the last few years a method for reversing the Casimir effect has been discovered.

"reversing" the Casimir effect? I think you mean the Casimir effect itself. Anyway, that just proves my point; the Casimir effect only acts on pico-scale distances and doesn't alter chemistry at all. Electrons are still electrons.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Nope! See; Copernican Revolution

I'm only talking about science. Before the 17th century, it wasn't science at all. And what about 1700 and 1800?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This is your opinion and nothing more. The defining characteristic of scientific revolution is that the extent and specifics of any sort of a shift in our scientific paradigm cannot or are not predicted before they happen. There is absolutely no way for you to know that our understanding of science won't completely change course in 100 years or tomorrow.

When was the last time you traveled close to the speed of light?

Originally Posted by esfx

"reversing" the Casimir effect? I think you mean the Casimir effect itself. Anyway, that just proves my point; the Casimir effect only acts on pico-scale distances and doesn't alter chemistry at all. Electrons are still electrons.

Actually, I mean reversing it, although you are right; it's discovery in the first place was also within the last 70 years.

Originally Posted by esfx

I'm only talking about science. Before the 17th century, it wasn't science at all. And what about 1700 and 1800?

Oh... my mistake. I guess we are discluding Galileo from the list of scientists as well.

You said that science was only revolutionized once, at the beginning of the 19th century, and so I only needed to find a single example before then to prove you wrong. I thought that enlightening you about the Scientific Revolution should have been more than enough effort on my part, but apparently you want me to do all your homework for you. Alright then, see The Chemical Revolution(1700's) and Charles Darwin(1800's).

Originally Posted by esfx

When was the last time you traveled close to the speed of light?

Wut?

Originally Posted by esfx

"reversing" the Casimir effect? I think you mean the Casimir effect itself. Anyway, that just proves my point; the Casimir effect only acts on pico-scale distances and doesn't alter chemistry at all. Electrons are still electrons.




I'm only talking about science. Before the 17th century, it wasn't science at all. And what about 1700 and 1800?




When was the last time you traveled close to the speed of light?

Their were many science endeavors before the 1700 and 1800... Whether they set things up the same is up for debate, but people searching for the truth through testing only became mainstream in those ages... You think the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc did nothing "scientific"?

Not only do you doubt the ability of our ancestors, you think their are hardly any major discoveries to make... I disagree whole-heartily on both fronts.

Originally Posted by esfx

You seem to think that science is about collecting data. Well sure, we haven't tracked the motion of every particle in the universe yet. But in terms of interactions, yes, we pretty much got it nailed down. For example, consider how much (little) has changed in the science (not engineering) of electronics, chemistry, physics, etc, over the past 100 years. Well, basically nothing. Maxwell's equations are correct in all but the most ridiculously extreme circumstances. Chemistry hasn't changed one iota in 70 years, and I already mentioned the Standard Model.

What you're expressing is the Modern fallacy, that we live at the end of history, having corrected the errors of our naive forebearers, and all that remains to the perfection of human knowledge is the dotting of 'i's and the crossing of 't's. This view was losing currency in the 1930s and its coffin was nailed shut with the detonation of the atom bomb. It's a specific instance of the general phenomenon the Greeks called 'hubris.' History strongly suggests that truths we now take to be complete and self-evident will prove as provincial as a flat earth or indivisible atom given time. What has changed fundamentally in the last 70 years? How about solidity and location? Scientific orthodoxy maintained into the '50s or '60s that forms consist of some elementary particle occupying a specific space. Of course, it's still true and useful but, like Newtonian physics, incomplete.

Originally Posted by esfx

Let me ask you this: What, precisely, do you expect to change in our knowledge of the universe?

I expect that the more we look into the nature of things, the more provincial and provisional--the less complete--our current understanding will appear. There's no point where we will have it 'mostly figured out.' As has been the case for as long as we've been sapient, our notion of what constitutes the universe will continue to expand for as long as we're willing to investigate, meaning the pool of data from which we infer and about which we theorize will grow as well.

Originally Posted by esfx

Novel discovery =/= radical transformation. I never said there wouldn't be discoveries, but they will be confined to ever smaller regions of the universe, in the sense of energy scales, space scales, or time scales. For example, if string theory is proved correct, that will just be a small addendum on the SM. It will not affect our lives in any way, probably ever.

Again, you have it backwards. More likely our whole current understanding will become relevant to an ever smaller frame of reference proportionate to our total knowledge in the future, for as long as our curiousity persists. How will we operate differently in an immaterial, non-causal, infinite universe? We can't know, anymore than someone 500 years ago knew what it would mean to live on a globe rather than a table.