Never, really. If one claims something as true that the evidence does not support, then it is, by definition, not science.How many times do we teach in science some form of belief, some form of we are not sure?
All the time.How many times should we actually say, our knowledge is incomplete?
They say it all the time in popular literature. In a formal scientific context, not really at all.How many time do scientists actually say, we believe? We assume? and things similar to that.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Most people get their science from forum posters or newspapers or popular magazines. They are the ones who are always saying things are “facts.” But if you read the journals, scientists speak in terms of observation, results and conclusions. Knowledge is always incomplete, if it wasn’t, there’d be no need for scientists.How many times do we teach in science some form of belief, some form of we are not sure?
How many times should we actually say, our knowledge is incomplete?
How many time do scientists actually say, we believe? We assume? and things similar to that.
THANKS
That is a popularized myth. It was never true.But for all the time we’ve been able to do that, the Theory of Aerodynamics precluded bees from flying. Couldn’t happen.
I might also say that theoretical physics is pushing it’s way back into the realm of philosophy and is leaving the restrictions and rules of true scientific inquiry behind.Scientists who make absolute pronouncements of fact outside of their field (like Dawkins) and assert what is really only some subjective opinion they hold, have gone far beyond what is appropriate to scientists. But then, they are human, as we are, and imperfect, too.
Science is based on using the so-called scientific method, which often begins with an observation followed by the formulation of a hypothesis (informed opinion) to explain the observation, then testing the hypothesis–usually by means of a series of studies–and finally either confirming or disconfirming the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is confirmed, then a theory can be presented. However, that theory may be refuted at a later date if new evidence is found that the theory cannot adequately explain, or if the original hypothesis is tested further by means of replication studies and these studies do not generate similar results to the initial hypothesis.How many times do we teach in science some form of belief, some form of we are not sure?
How many times should we actually say, our knowledge is incomplete?
How many time do scientists actually say, we believe? We assume? and things similar to that.
THANKS
Beautifully stated. CAF should write some code to bring this post up every time someone mentions the words “just a theory”.Science is based on using the so-called scientific method, which often begins with an observation followed by the formulation of a hypothesis (informed opinion) to explain the observation, then testing the hypothesis–usually by means of a series of studies–and finally either confirming or disconfirming the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is confirmed, then a theory can be presented. However, that theory may be refuted at a later date if new evidence is found that the theory cannot adequately explain, or if the original hypothesis is tested further by means of replication studies and these studies do not generate similar results to the initial hypothesis.
Thus science is, by nature, based on potential change, not certitude. It is always open to new evidence, new discoveries. The new evidence must be submitted to scrutiny by using the scientific method described above. The only “belief system” of science is the method used, whereas the theories that are constructed using the method are subject to revision and possible replacement by other theories.
LOL! I’m 63, Farsight, trust me, it was true. It was only relatively recently that they figured out how bees fly. Here’s a nice brief article about it: newscientist.com/article/dn8382-secrets-of-bee-flight-revealed.htmlThat is a popularized myth. It was never true.
You might say it, but you’d be wrong. You sound like the scientific minds of the day who told Newton he was “bowing to mysticism” when he proposed universal gravity.I might also say that theoretical physics is pushing it’s way back into the realm of philosophy and is leaving the restrictions and rules of true scientific inquiry behind.
I hear the “just a theory” phrase all the time on the media. I caution my psychology students about saying it and threaten (jokingly, of course) to either fail them or throw them out the window if I hear them say it in class.Beautifully stated. CAF should write some code to bring this post up every time someone mentions the words “just a theory”.
Belief isn’t really necessary. A predictive model can be constructed and employed without believing that that the model is the actually how a system works. In some cases we know that the model is not how a system actually works, but the inaccurate model still has some utility (ex:Bohr model of the nucleus, Newtonian vs. Einstein).How many times do we teach in science some form of belief, some form of we are not sure?
From what I recall from my biology course and some of my high school courses there were acknowledgements to not knowing why something is a certain way. It was also made known that the knowledge was provisional; it serves it’s purpose in constructing predictive models but may be adjusted as new information is revealed and better models are proposed.How many times should we actually say, our knowledge is incomplete?
Every time you look in a book giving various scientific constants. Most constants come with a margin of error. For example the charge on an electron is given together with its uncertainty:How many times do we teach in science some form of belief, some form of we are not sure?
Every time we give a physical measurement which has an associated uncertainty. Some quantum mechanical measurements do not have uncertainties.How many times should we actually say, our knowledge is incomplete?
LOL! I’m 63, Farsight, trust me, it was true. It was only relatively recently that they figured out how bees fly. Here’s a nice brief article about it: newscientist.com/article/dn8382-secrets-of-bee-flight-revealed.html
The myth is that science somehow stated or held that bees ‘should be’ unable to fly. You have provided a link to an article which repeats the myth. The paper on which the article reports does not repeat the myth. Science has yet to figure out almost everything. The wonderful thing is that it has figured out so much.
Yeah, well, no one has actually provided any information whatsoever that it is a myth. I do believe your idea that it was a “myth” is what’s actually mythological, unless you can supply some support. Theory only contains what it contains, and science is always finding things that “can’t be,” but are. Which, of course, fuels more discovery.The myth is that science somehow stated or held that bees ‘should be’ unable to fly. You have provided a link to an article which repeats the myth. The paper on which the article reports does not repeat the myth. Science has yet to figure out almost everything. The wonderful thing is that it has figured out so much.
It is not exactly a myth. When some aerodynamic engineering equations were applied to bumble bees it was indeed found that the bees could not generate enough lift. The problem was that the equations were for fixed wings, and bumble bees move their wings, so those particular equations did not apply – they were based on the wrong model.Yeah, well, no one has actually provided any information whatsoever that it is a myth. I do believe your idea that it was a “myth” is what’s actually mythological, unless you can supply some support. Theory only contains what it contains, and science is always finding things that “can’t be,” but are. Which, of course, fuels more discovery.
I don’t suppose you recall that up until about 10 years ago, by all prevailing scientific knowledge, the rate of expansion of the universe was said to be slowing down. Yet, just the opposite seems to be correct.
Science does not know everything, so sometimes it has to adjust its theories to reflect new discoveries. We have better telescopes and can see further, e.g. Hubble, than we could years ago. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” - John Maynard KeynesOr, is that a myth also?
Exactly. Yet, they seemed to fly just fine, even though there were no models which explained their ability to fly. So, it’s a false premise that science “teaches what it’s not sure of.” People who teach relay the most up-to-date information they have (one hopes). Scientists explore things to figure out the way they work. Theories explain how things work. Theories are neither “guesses” nor “facts:” just explanations.It is not exactly a myth. When some aerodynamic engineering equations were applied to bumble bees it was indeed found that the bees could not generate enough lift.
Science isn’t about proving something to be 100% true in the sense people commonly understand it. When you apply heat to water, it boils. It’s reasonable to assume that the water is being boiled by the flame. However, what if every time we try do this, there’s a demon tricking us and boiling the water for us and that it’s not the fire?How many times do we teach in science some form of belief, some form of we are not sure?
A friend of mine thought he could run his car off water (by splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen), he didnt seem to understand to get the hydrogen out, you need to (name removed by moderator)ut a certain amount of energy which is the energy equal to that you’d get to burning hydrogen in the first place. I pointed out that it didnt make sense in thermodynamics, then he mentioned the whole bee thing (which he found on a website selling the water kits), turns out they solved the bee thing too! livescience.com/528-scientists-finally-figure-bees-fly.htmlIt is not exactly a myth. When some aerodynamic engineering equations were applied to bumble bees it was indeed found that the bees could not generate enough lift. The problem was that the equations were for fixed wings, and bumble bees move their wings, so those particular equations did not apply – they were based on the wrong model.
Actually gravity is a very good example. We used to have Newton’s theory, which worked very well for almost everything we wanted to use it for. However, there were still a few puzzles it didn’t solve: the precession of the orbit of Mercury for one. Einstein came up with a better theory. For all the stuff covered by Newton it gives the same answer, or as close as makes no difference. For the edge cases, like Mercury, it gave better answers. Now we use Einstein’s theory.Apply this to gravity as well, it seems to be one of the best prove theories we have and yet, it still is a theory. It’s the most likely and evidence based explanation that it’s just based on natural laws but it could be a magical demon pulling everything down so it just appears that way.
Math makes for a nice language for describing the universe. When it was found that available systems of math were not adequate for describing an observation like any other language it has been expanded to include newer concepts that one wishes to describe. But just as a verbal or written expression is not the same as the object it describes math expressions are not the same as the systems they describe. They are related and there are some inference preserving relationships between the description and the object (a type of isomorphism) but not the same.Is there an assumption by some of the scientists that do the research on the Big Bang and the study of the heavens, that math is the structure of the universe?
If it isn’t, then math will not be the complete answer but only a description.
IMO, math is a tool we invented to describe and predict. Math is fun, it can even describe things that can’t exist in Space/Time.Is there an assumption by some of the scientists that do the research on the Big Bang and the study of the heavens, that math is the structure of the universe?
If it isn’t, then math will not be the complete answer but only a description.