My Thoughts on Science (& a Bit on Religion, too)

[ericjherboso]

I always have such a tough time explaining how I think to other people. No one ever seems to be able to follow my train of thought no matter how hard I try to explain myself, and I consistently end up thinking that maybe there's some part of me that is crazy in a way that is obvious to others but is completely invisible to me

Comments

[hemorex]

Have we talked about this before? Because the idea that human thought -in general- works off the creation of models, which are in essence wrong, but workable, is something that's bounced around my head quite a bit for the last few years. Just curious. My memory's not what it used to be, and it never even used to be good. :)

[ericjherboso]

It's certainly possible, though I should mention that I didn't really get to this idea until around late '01-early '02.

[kevinsparakeet]

Interesting views on science there. I too have a fascination with this way of thinking. It is why I decided to go into applied mathmatics as opposed to the pure branch as it involves observing the data and making models based on trends that we observe, further refining them. The same method is used in that field as you describe for science as you see it. The only thing is, we make no bones about our models being correct for real world situations, just "good enough" to stand up for certain parameters. We are always interested in further refining our models as we do not believe that the models we create are entirely complete. Mathematics is not purely a logic game for me - it has real, concrete application.

I for reasons that should be apparrent disagree with your views on religion. This argument I will leave for another time though.

underpants

[ericjherboso]

The difference in applied math, I think, is that you still think of making 'refinements' of models, where I instead have this idea that whatever the current model is, it is far more likely that the reality is completely and utterly different from whatever you're thinking of now

[blessedlunatic]

Did you ever get to see the Darth Vader face on the National Cathedral?

There was a spy exhibit in the British Military Museum that I went to while I was in London. It was very cool, although it definitely was different from what I expected it to be.

[ericjherboso]

I've nevr seen the vader thing in person, unfortunately. But if I recall correctly, I think they placed it way in the top where no one could really see it. Or maybe that's somehing else I'm thinking of.

And, unfortunately, I didn't get to go to the spy museum this past weekend. Oh, well. Maybe next time I tour dc.

[blessedlunatic]

Wait, but don't you live right near DC?

[ericjherboso]

I'm in Maryland, actually. But yeah, theoretically I can hop on the bus/metro and tour DC anytime I want. But for some reason I often find myself reading a random book on a bench down the street instead.

Remember how when I lived near the beach in Alabama, I still only went out to Dauphin Island like twice a semester? It's the same thing here. Now that I can go to the smithsonian three times a week if I wanted to, I instead waited until Mary came to visit before attempting a proper walk-through.

I think this is worthwhile proof that I'm a complete idiot.

Occam's Razor

[anonymous]

What I found missing in your description of science was any mention of Occam's Razor, i.e., the argument that when given several theories which explain the data, you are obligated to assume the simplest theory is the correct one unless there is additional data to the contrary.

This doesn't guarantee only one theory as there could be several equally simple theories, but it eliminates many theories. When we had to revise the notion that the universe revolved around the earth, it was largely due to the simplicity of the mathematics once the sun was used instead of the earth as the center of their orbits.

Also, the best science occurs not when it just explains the data, but when it predicts NEW data that we haven't yet obtained. Einstein did this spectacularly. This is where science ceases to be negative and becomes positive. It's more about prediction than explanation. Explanation is cheap. Accurate prediction is priceless.

Re: Occam's Razor

[ericjherboso]

The reason why I did not speak on Occam's Razor during my description of the ideal science is the same reason I scrupulously avoid mathematical induction and infinitesimals when speaking on ideal mathematics

Re: Occam's Razor

[ericjherboso]

As an example that goes straight to your heliocentrism example, consider the ideas on star movement that were considered before using a central sun idea. There's a rather interesting finding that showed that if you make a sphere of a certain diameter around the earth, and then inscribe it by a euclidean solid, which is itself circumscribed by another sphere, and so on, until each of the five euclidean solids are used in a certain order (descending, I think? I can't remember...) then those are the spheres by which you can make a system of spheres rotating evenly within spheres that to a great degree of accuracy shows the motion of the then known planets

[picarpo]

Even though I have no idea to think you're wrong, and in fact have strong evidence to think you're right (when I disagree with you, I often change my mind after reading your rebuttal), the former was indeed my reaction. Perhaps it's the style you wrote this entry in. I'm not even sure why I'm saying this, so I'll say that it's an example of the point I'm about to make. My first thought is that science is truly biased from the start. I do believe that there is a discoverable way to explain how reality works -- however, I believe that we humans are able to appreciate only a small part of it. We pursue science based on a view of what we can perceive, which is inherently biased. So I think it is natural that theories about this biased perception will themselves be biased to seem "simpler" to this same human perception. In fact, what differentiates a simple theory from a complex one? It seems to me that there are two situations. The first is that a complex theory can have everything that a simple theory has, and more -- in which case of

[ericjherboso]

I've been stewing over this comment of yours for quite a while, though I never got around to actually typing anything substantial in return.

After much thought, I think that the paragraph you wrote does contradict what I said in this entry, and I further think that I now agree with you