In a basic sense, science “proves” nothing. There are scientific theories that “explain” our universe, put forward by scientists. An essential feature is that those theories are testable. They need to be able to make predictions that can be verified by observation or experiement.They are considered as valid until they fail to explain new observations. They are then discarded or modified. They evolve. Science is subject to testing and to falsification. That’s what makes it so strong. Much stronger than “beliefs” which are impervious to evidence.
Some theories remain useful even though demonstrated to be only approximate or to have only limited scope. Newtonian physics is fairly simple mathematically, and makes reasonable predictions at a general level, but at the very large/fast/heavy/dense scale they are supplanted by general relativity in terms of precision. At the very small scale, it is supplanted by quantum mechanics (and related quantum fields).
Technology now pushes ahead on the basis of these newer, more precise theories. Steam engines didn’t need an understanding of quantum effects, but the integrated circuits in your cell-phone do. The first maritime chronometer didn’t need general relativity, but the GPS in your car does.
My attempts at a scientific approach to baking sourdoughs often fails due to variations in flour, humidity and temperature. But it’s tasty when I get it right!
Exactly, look at Srinivasa Ramanujan, he challenged the scientific consensus in the mathematical science community to much consternation and even ridicule at the time, but eventually won the community around with the guidance and coaching of Professor G H Harding… (this story was made into a good film)
I am sure there are millions of examples … Einstein also suffered the same challenges when he challenged the scientific consensus… and another, this time engineer, Tommy Flowers, challenged the established scientific norms of what electronic switching could be used for in computational science (went against the scientific consensus of top U.K. Government scientists at the time and was initially denied funding) , and designed and built the world’s first electronic programmable computer, which as many of us know evolved into his Colossus design, used to help decrypt the Enigma encoded transmissions used in the second world war.
To me science is about describing and demonstrating the models of constructs around us… it can be only based on what we experience, know or believe, when something new comes along hitherto un seen or experienced or explained, then the scientific perspectives and even established norms within a consensus may then need to change.
Precisely. If I can cast my mind back to my undergraduate years, falsifiability was associated with Karl Popper. If something cannot be falsified it is unscientific, mere dogma. As has been stated, ‘science’ does not exist as a body of hard facts, rather as a method of establishing the validity of a hypothesis. Conjunction is not the same as causation. I remember trying to get my head round Thomas Kuhn but, to be honest, he just made my brain melt.
I guess that you have Einstein work on special relativity in mind. This work was by no mean subject to “much consternation and even ridicule”. Scientists like Lorentz and Poincaré knew that Maxwell equations are invariant under the so called Lorentz transformations; What was lacking (and this is Einstein breakthrough) is a physical interpretation.
Einstein 1905 works on the Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect were well received also.
By science I mean maths and physics. These provide theories or theorems which can be disproved by experiment or logic. So no facts, all opinion based on study.
Indeed and with fTommy Flowers… an engineer with a working class background, and Ramanaujan who came from India with no formal schooling and developed his initial research in isolation…
They didn’t fit the established social norms of educated scientists, and their research and ideas were initially dismissed by the established scientific communities of the time not least as they challenged the then current consensus.
I am referring to his work on relativity… and how outside of Germany it would appear initially the established scientific communities largely ignored, failed to understand or even ridicule his work.
Really recommend the Einstein museum in Bern if you haven’t been… you certainly get an impression of the awe inspiring tenacity of the man… and the extent he was pushing against the established norms of the time at personal cost to himself and arguably his family.
I would rather say that inside the small world of theoretical physics it became big in the 80’s, first in the USA. It has been big for many years and very well funded, with many PhD students and postdocs. At some time it was believed to be the bright future of theoretical particle physics. And yes it is less popular (inside the small world of theoretical physics) now but still well alive.
If the evidence supports the theory, it’s accepted – for now
Evidence comes from controlled lab experiments, or data collected in the field
From which we can draw meaningful conclusions
Society makes decisions based on scientific evidence (and cost and a few other factors)
However, it’s those two little words in bold – for now – that give rise to doubt
Future theories and experiments might, and often do, lead to different conclusions
But for much of the time, we accept as fact, much of the evidence and use it for day-to-day practical predictions of future events, within certain limits and with a certain degree of caution and a certain degree of success.
Of course, not all scientists agree upon the adequacy of the experiments or data collection. Society then has to form an opinion, on which direction or which theory to take forward.
In days of old, when Knights were bold and toilets weren’t invented, it was an accepted fact that the sun circled the earth. At the time, the empirical evidence was compelling - it rose in the East and fell in the West, every day. If it did not circle the earth, how could it re-appear in the East after disappearing in the West?
Of course, we now know that the sun doesn’t circle the earth - because the increased body of known scientific knowledge has demonstrated otherwise. Even the Vatican now accepts that fact …
A biography of Galileo makes a very interesting read.
