|
Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science Scientific Politics and Misconduct |
SCIENCE MODELS AND REALITY
Science functions by generating some conceptual model (thought models, not physical models) of the interactions of things found in the world and then testing that model in the laboratory to see if the model fits reality. This does not mean that the model is reality but only that it is a method of predicting how certain physical interactions occur. Future tests can always show the model to be limited or in need of being replace by an entirely different model. Experiments verify the models/theories and future experiments can always prove the model to be in error in some way.
On the other hand, if science cannot generate a model of something and test the model, that does not prove that something is known not to exist. That would only say that science has not yet proven the existence, it does not disprove the possible reality. The classical historical example of this would be the existence of radio waves which were not part of science knowledge prior to their discovery by H. Hertz around 1888. Of course, the radio waves were a reality before that time as well and had been believed to exist possibly as early as 1831 and certainly believe to exist in 1855 when Maxwell published a paper on the subject. Clearly prior to the experiments which proved their existence, science would have been saying that radio waves do not exist. That would, of course, not been proof that they did not exist.
Science beliefs determine what experiments are run and what "proofs" are looked for. This limits the types of experiments performed and this has profound implications and limits the study of life in particular. Science assumes that all of reality is materialistic and therefore does not run experiments relative to models of reality which could show such a model to be incomplete.
Science has no problem on the other hand in running experiments for what is called dark matter. (Dark matter is supposedly something which cannot be seen or detected directly at this point in time (it is not in reality known if such matter actually exists or is simply a construct to explain limitations (errors) in the present "laws" of physics.) Scientists who control the funding of experiments believe such matter exists (it fits their materialistic models of reality), but experiments to date have only shown that there is a phenomena seen in astronomy which fit the concept as it adjusts the predictions of physics to better fit reality. It does not matter to physicists that dark matter cannot be seen or touched, what counts to the scientists is that dark matter theory fits their dogmatic models (belief in the validity of existing models of physics which describe matter interactions/.
Science, on the other hand, is not looking for any form of life field because that would not fit the materialistic reductionistic model of reality. Some scientists believe that there may be some form of field that determines the nature of life but they do not control the financial purse strings. Darwinian macroevolution is the materialistic alternative (even though scientific calculations show that the probability of it explaining all of life is extremely small) and gets ample funding from atheistic scientists who control the research funding.
The materialistic dogma has actually been proven to be a poor model of reality. Experiments in physics has shown that the model of matter as a conglomeration of tiny particles is not an accurate model. All of reality is in fact best modeled by what is known in physics as quantum mechanical waves. Matter is just some form of a kink in a wave which science can detect, but science does not know what the carrier of the wave consists of. Clearly, most scientists are materialistic and that determines how they think and the models the construct of reality.
We should evaluate science truth knowing that science models always will be biased by the beliefs of the science community structure. The models used at any point in time are not the absolute truth but only represent the prevailing dogma. Until science tests postulates about the possible existence of a morphological or other form of life field science can only say it has not looked into that possibility. Until science fully accepts that quantum waves are reality and matter is not tiny granular pieces of something like sub-microscopic sand, even many physics related models (including biological ones) will be limited in their accuracy.
The proven science models are never absolute reality, only the state of scientific knowledge about reality at that point in time. Supposed science truths are models always open to question and verification or falsification. Complex Systems Concepts. Science truth is not absolute.
Science is supposed to be an open contest of ideas, but the reality is the dogmatic adherence to models with serious conflicts with reality limit the contest and the truth that can be known from science. If scientists assume something does not exist or cannot be discovered by testing and do not test for it, the contest does not occur and science must be viewed as less credible.
An excellent example of how science should work is the way in which Einstein's Relativity theories were proven. Einstein used mental models of falling elevators and thought experiments inside such elevators to conceive of the equivalence between acceleration and gravity. He even went on to develop mathematical equations to describe the distortions of objects and even space as a function of mass acceleration and gravity. Just because he had a model and the mathematics, that did not prove anything. It only gave a direction to experiments to see if his theories actually fit reality. The most famous test was when general relativity was tested by observing the deflection of light during an eclipse. The observations showed that general relativity fit reality in a precise way in that one special case. To this date, decades later, however, test continue to determine the accuracy of his model/theory and whether or not it fails in some cases. That is always how science should be. It should be a continuing set of experiments which test the model and looks for its limits. Sadly, in the some cases, and in regards to evolution in particular and to a lesser extent the big bang theory problems and "dark matter" large scale gravity problems, the questioning that should be part of science is often set aside in favor of dogma which makes things easier for the scientists. Such a strongly biased approach to science will inevitably fail to tell society the real and whole truth.
Real world science done by humans does not deal with unquestionable or unbiased truth; it is also often primarily determined by financial or other personal interests. Even something as vital as the facts about global warming may be more influenced by money that the truth.
An Introduction to the Logic of Scientific Method
"Integrative Science”: The Death-Knell of Scientific Materialism?