He had a point. Yet the hard sciences and their laws etc. are as close to "truth" about the universe as we are likely to ever obtain. Yes, in principle any "theory" (or "Law") is always subject to falsification. That noun itself is curious. In the scientific sense, it means "subject to being disproved." Alas, in our modern world where ideology swamps science, it also means what it does to the common man: a lie, a counterfeit, an untruth. Returning to sciences, the point is that a good theory (or Law) withstands many assaults. As long as it stands, it's valid. Challengers are welcome, but the burden of proof is high.
It's also worth noting that the further you get from "pure" science (usually Mathematics is the sole example offered), you rapidly move from the Hard sciences (Physics, chemistry, etc.) into the social "sciences" (sociology, economics, etc.) The actual amount of objectively discoverable "truth" rapidly diminishes, as more ideology and opinion necessarily clutter the discipline. Medicine falls somewhere in between but in theory should be closer to a hard science since at least in theory, it's based upon traditional sciences.
While there is a finite probability that there exists a universe in which I agree with "Yet the hard sciences and their laws etc. are as close to "truth" about the universe as we are likely to ever obtain". But in the one I'm currently occupying I have to say absolutely not unless by "hard" you mean "political science" and I'm pretty sure you don't. If by "hard" you mean physics, then no. We are no where near as close to truth as we can or will get. Just n my lifetime our understanding of the physical world, both on a macro and micro scale, has changed profoundly. As an example we look back at much of what was "truth" a few decades ago in solid state physics with much the same amusement we ponder the analysis that led to the conclusion the earth was flat. Based on what was observed up to then, sure, it made sense...until it didn't. As our observational methods improve, our understanding changes, sometimes fundamentally. I see nothing to suggest we've peaked in our ability to observe, challenge, question and contradict through new observations what we thought to be true.
Which I think is your main point, with which I agree with enthusiastically: real science is about inquiry, and everything MUST be challenged. A theory that "withstands many assaults" is useful. It may may not be truth, but it is solid science. A theory or any other idea for which challenge is not allowed can not be science.
I would love to entertain a debate on "is mathematics a science, or an essential tool for science?". That would be fun...but more than will fit here :-). Again though I think not your point. And again my observations and experience agree with yours: many areas claiming to be "science driven" rely more on definitional decrees than the methods of science. Defining "questions" in terms so that there can be only one answer, or where there can be no answer at all. We certainly have seen political objectives driving these "sciences" more than repeatable methodologies for decades or probably centuries. Those "hard" sciences are not immune from politics, either. The history of physics is replete with established organizations rejecting new ideas and falling back on poor methodology to defend failing positions.
History is also replete with examples of non-science forces driving conclusions based on various "motivations" - in the modern world it is funding, status and position often used to motivate, and in many kingdoms (past and present) it was (or is) "support what the king wants or die" either of which has been shown effective at over-riding sound principles and shutting down inquiry. In medicine in particular I have observed a lot of sloppy methods and mathematically unsupportable conclusions. My theory is that in part this is due to ethical constraints: you can't design valid comparative studies with human populations. We tend to frown upon those who have tried. And so compromises must be made, and compromise becomes lack of rigor (sloppy) which then becomes habit. Ever tried to explain statistics (I mean the real math) to an MD? You'll see what I mean ;-).
It is one thing to be sloppy out of habit and another to deny those that would be less sloppy and yet another to suppress actual inquiry. Or is it?
So is there a difference between 2020-22 and the dark ages? We see much the same pattern - what we now call "science" was termed "denial", "heresy" and so on. With some amusement I note the politically correct self-anointed intellectual academics will decry the suppression of what we now recognize as "science" while endorsing the same kind of labeling and suppression. I wasn't around during the onset of the dark ages but I can imagine it started much the same way - "your misinformation is causing panic and danger!".
Yes, I really enjoy thinking and conversing about such things! Thanks....
He had a point. Yet the hard sciences and their laws etc. are as close to "truth" about the universe as we are likely to ever obtain. Yes, in principle any "theory" (or "Law") is always subject to falsification. That noun itself is curious. In the scientific sense, it means "subject to being disproved." Alas, in our modern world where ideology swamps science, it also means what it does to the common man: a lie, a counterfeit, an untruth. Returning to sciences, the point is that a good theory (or Law) withstands many assaults. As long as it stands, it's valid. Challengers are welcome, but the burden of proof is high.
It's also worth noting that the further you get from "pure" science (usually Mathematics is the sole example offered), you rapidly move from the Hard sciences (Physics, chemistry, etc.) into the social "sciences" (sociology, economics, etc.) The actual amount of objectively discoverable "truth" rapidly diminishes, as more ideology and opinion necessarily clutter the discipline. Medicine falls somewhere in between but in theory should be closer to a hard science since at least in theory, it's based upon traditional sciences.
While there is a finite probability that there exists a universe in which I agree with "Yet the hard sciences and their laws etc. are as close to "truth" about the universe as we are likely to ever obtain". But in the one I'm currently occupying I have to say absolutely not unless by "hard" you mean "political science" and I'm pretty sure you don't. If by "hard" you mean physics, then no. We are no where near as close to truth as we can or will get. Just n my lifetime our understanding of the physical world, both on a macro and micro scale, has changed profoundly. As an example we look back at much of what was "truth" a few decades ago in solid state physics with much the same amusement we ponder the analysis that led to the conclusion the earth was flat. Based on what was observed up to then, sure, it made sense...until it didn't. As our observational methods improve, our understanding changes, sometimes fundamentally. I see nothing to suggest we've peaked in our ability to observe, challenge, question and contradict through new observations what we thought to be true.
Which I think is your main point, with which I agree with enthusiastically: real science is about inquiry, and everything MUST be challenged. A theory that "withstands many assaults" is useful. It may may not be truth, but it is solid science. A theory or any other idea for which challenge is not allowed can not be science.
I would love to entertain a debate on "is mathematics a science, or an essential tool for science?". That would be fun...but more than will fit here :-). Again though I think not your point. And again my observations and experience agree with yours: many areas claiming to be "science driven" rely more on definitional decrees than the methods of science. Defining "questions" in terms so that there can be only one answer, or where there can be no answer at all. We certainly have seen political objectives driving these "sciences" more than repeatable methodologies for decades or probably centuries. Those "hard" sciences are not immune from politics, either. The history of physics is replete with established organizations rejecting new ideas and falling back on poor methodology to defend failing positions.
History is also replete with examples of non-science forces driving conclusions based on various "motivations" - in the modern world it is funding, status and position often used to motivate, and in many kingdoms (past and present) it was (or is) "support what the king wants or die" either of which has been shown effective at over-riding sound principles and shutting down inquiry. In medicine in particular I have observed a lot of sloppy methods and mathematically unsupportable conclusions. My theory is that in part this is due to ethical constraints: you can't design valid comparative studies with human populations. We tend to frown upon those who have tried. And so compromises must be made, and compromise becomes lack of rigor (sloppy) which then becomes habit. Ever tried to explain statistics (I mean the real math) to an MD? You'll see what I mean ;-).
It is one thing to be sloppy out of habit and another to deny those that would be less sloppy and yet another to suppress actual inquiry. Or is it?
So is there a difference between 2020-22 and the dark ages? We see much the same pattern - what we now call "science" was termed "denial", "heresy" and so on. With some amusement I note the politically correct self-anointed intellectual academics will decry the suppression of what we now recognize as "science" while endorsing the same kind of labeling and suppression. I wasn't around during the onset of the dark ages but I can imagine it started much the same way - "your misinformation is causing panic and danger!".
Yes, I really enjoy thinking and conversing about such things! Thanks....