physics and natural sciences in a nutshell

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

I’ll take a break from the usual banter and write something that will likely annoy a number of people here to no end. One trouble I have had with regards to the sciences is peoples perceptions of them as a form of absolute or as entirely correct.

This is a false misconception that simply ignores far too much and imposes too much responsability onto science as a whole. Science is neither complete nore is it pure truth. It is, if nothing else, a method to relate physical phenomonon to an understandable format, namely mathematics.

a chief example being what we regard as the three findimental laws of motion.

  1. an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
  2. The relationship between an object’s mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma.
    3… For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

the first and last are simply natural phenomonon, one that newton observed and noted, nothing spectacular there except that he made it public knowledge.

the second one is an observed phenomonon that was described using mathamatics, the phenomonon allready exsisted he simply showed what the corrilation was using math.

from there we have derrived our overtly complicated system known as physics, the formulas in physics are mathamatical equasions used to show the relation between verious mesurable aspects or variables, ie. mass, displacement, time, and their various formats, velosity = change in displacement over time, Acceleration= change in velosity over time, etc.

We can then use these formulas to estimate results of verious interactions of said variables and determine a desirable outcome, ie determining the amount of gunpouder required to fling a cannonball three miles (mass of cannonball, average force created by said volume of gunpowder, force required to move said cannonball said distance, etc.)

as a result the formulas we use are extremely complicated to afford for each affordable combination of variables, ie. mesurable aspects, and derive outcome.

The theories used in physics are, for lack of a better description, metophors used to describe this relation to the lamen, who does not understand the mathamatics on their own. and as such many lamen think these theories are the truth and so causes conflict when the theories change or conflict with oneanother.

the only truth to physics is that the formulas are a mathamatic description of a mesurable phenomon.

On a side note: if sir Issiac Newton could see some of the stupid arguments said “scientists” are having about postulating theory, he’d probably laugh himself into his grave at the whole idea.

wether you agree with me or not, I would like to hear your oppinions, at least so I don’t feel my post has fallen onto a deaf audiance who cares more about fighting than they do about the truth beyond.

peace

2

My problem, well not really a problem, is when scientists take themselves out of experimental fields and into speculative ones.
This may sound like bullshit.
When we take things that are readily observable and use our mathematics to recognize patterns and state in our scientific journals that some patterns are correlated to one another and based on this knowledge we can control our experiments, that’s fine. That’s how we get technology like medicine and computers and all those good, tangible things.
But when science moves into primarily speculative fields such as theoretical physics, we don’t get things like internet and pharmaceuticals. We get things like black holes and mass-less particles and wave theories. We have to postulate the existence of unobservable things for our mathematics to function. This is where I believe science goes beyond its epistemologial limits it the sorts of things that it asserts. The truth is, that no one on this entire philosophy board has a complete and coherent understanding of black holes any more so than another has one of God.
I challenge anyone here to assert that they do.
So why believe in black holes? Why believe in God?
Is it even possible for us to make reliable predictions about the nature of unobservable things? Can we actually take what we’ve learned from empirical facts, be they one’s justified true religious beliefs, or the scientific method and make accurate speculations based on the patterns that we recognize though our rational taking-in of observable things? How much can we know based on closed mathematical systems? How reliable is what we know from ones that are not?
I think that in this way, religion and science are the same.
Thoughts anyone?

3

Nature defines math, math does not define nature. The math of man does not define nature. This is a fundamental that pomo physicists forget.

4

I think you’ll find that is the fundamental that mathematicians forget. An experimental physics lab is a place of observables.

5

The idea of science as being absolute truth is clearly wrong. However more often I think people look upon science as being like the Supreme Court, it might be wrong but it is the highest authority we have and for the sake of cohesion we will agree to abide by what it says. There are some problems with this idea, most clearly who speaks for “Science”, and what areas is Science really the best authority? But where there is a clear consensus of scientists and the topic is in a field where science excels, I think it is rational to take science to be our best guide.

I disagree that the theories are primarily for laymen, and that the truth of physics lies in the mathematics. More often than not the first thing a physicist will do when encountering a new problem is draw a picture, not write down a formula. That picture gives you a sense of how to apply the formulas and even where you are not going to use any math the theory will tell you something fundamental about what is important in the situation. Image you learn all the higher math, and memorize all the formulas in physics, would you then be able to do physics? No, you would have no idea in what way to apply the formulas and without an intuitive understanding of what is going on even the most basic situation would get hopelessly complicated.

6

Exactly, as I mentioned before: Physics is the study of reality.

It is not an absolute truth, but that is a limitation not of the science but of ourselves. We will never reach a final conclusion GUT because of our own limitations; we have been entirely wrong in the past about our studies of natural phenomena and will continue to do so until we ‘get it right’, so to speak. That is why physics has, and will continue to have, a place of great importance through the future of science and indeed, philosophy.

Mathematics is a tool of physics. Physics is not a form of mathematics.

7

A few things:
onlyhuman, I think Newton’s first and third law were pretty inovative, in that he recognized things that others hadn’t. In the first, he recognized that it was air and friction that slowed things down, and not a natural tendency. In the third, he noticed that, for instance, if you jump, the floor is actually being indented slightly. Those are both significant statements, even though we take them for granted now.
Smears, I think you are undervaluing speculation. Einstein’s theory of relativity was largely speculation (though there was experimental evidence that necessitated/triggered it). It made predictions for phenomena that hadn’t been observed, and it led to incredible improvements in many, many fields. The same is true of quantum physics. So while the cutting edge of theoretical physics isn’t producing testable predictions, it isn’t worthless in principle.

Also, I think that besides being a formalization of observations, physics’ role involves observing something and making correlations about the observations until the phenomena is predictable. Prediction is the business of science. I agree that calling scientific discoveries “truth” is wrong. In principle, all science cares about is making useful predictions.

8

I don’t know that this is the only function of science. I think a scientific work also needs a conceptual or, as you call it, a metaphorical description in order to come to a full and sufficient understanding of the phenomena under investigation. Metaphors, like mathematics, serve to make predictions. The central difference is that metaphors make qualitative predictions (i.e. what kind of outcome are we going to get) whereas mathematics makes quantitative predictions (i.e. how much are we going to get in the outcome).

That being said, I do agree that too many laymen take these metaphors for literal truth. The best example that comes to mind is the mattress metaphore for GR. We’ve all seen it - it’s the description of a bowling ball creating an indent in a mattress, representing the way massive bodies warp and curve the fabric of spacetime. But this is just a metaphor, and can’t work in physics, if for no other reason than because it presupposes gravity in the first place (pulling the bowling ball down) rather than presenting gravity as a consequence.

A qualitative description of a scientific account is never anything more than a mental model. The mind has its limits in terms of what it can invent and how accurately those inventions mirror the real world. We are so constituted to mimic the outer world, in our heads, in the same way and form as we sense the outer world - that is, in accordance with the paradigm of classical physics. But only the naive take the apparant world of classical physics as representative of reality in her absolute and exhaustive form. Our mental models work best with the world of classical physics - the world they have evolved to deal with - but this in no way means that all the world is equally amenable to this specialized treatment.

9

I’m not sure many people in science have that belief.

I think scientists know better than anyone that Science is always an approximation yearning for better accuracy.

The promotion of the perception of science as an egotistical endeavor sounds like an ad hominem attack. Science is supposed to be the opposite of ego (although I’m sure most scientists are as shallow as the rest of us).

But Science as an institution I believe is 100% opposed to egotism.