Student: Sir, yesterday I visited a very interesting and rather well crafted web-site called Physics 7 written by Jose Wudka on the Internet, and I really would like to discuss some parts of this site with you. I have even made some notes in my notebook for an accurate citing.
Expert: Good. Go ahead and ask your questions.
Student: The part, which interested me most of all, was a part about the so-called Scientific Method. Let me read what was written about it there.
Expert: Ok.
Student:It took a long while to determine how is the world better investigated. One way is to just talk about it (for example Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, stated that males and females have different number of teeth, without bothering to check; he then provided long arguments as to why this is the way things ought to be). This method is unreliable: arguments cannot determine whether a statement is correct, this requires proofs.
A better approach is to do experiments and perform careful observations. The results of this approach are universal in the sense that they can be reproduced by any skeptic. It is from these ideas that the scientific method was developed. Most of science is based on this procedure for studying Nature.
Expert: Sounds good. What do you think?
Student: I think, indeed, that it is rather hard to say now, if great Aristotle was serious or joking, when he spoke about the teeth. In the latter case we may wonder at his sense of humor, which some of his late readers may lack.
Expert: Good remark! Moreover, even if he was serious, we, apparently, need to distinguish what is, from what ought to be. To continue with the teeth, we may reasonably debate (in case we distinguish these two aspects), if a man ought to have his wisdom teeth and if our far descendants will keep it, even if the result of our recent check is positive. And it's unlikely, that even the strictest empiricist would call such debate as unreliable. It is merely another point.
As for the proofs, I would add from my life experience, that, alas, it is nearly impossible to prove something to anybody, who doesn't want to agree with you. That is, who has some kind of will of disagreement. He would either reject your statement, or produce his counter-proofs. A popular scientific misconception consists in forgetting such a simple observation, that what is a proof for one man may be not a proof for another. If the proofs would be like money (I mean real money, of course), the answer, evidently, would be very easy - that is, the one who has more money is true. But fortunately or unfortunately, facts are not unambiguous things like money.
Really, what does it mean to prove something to somebody, in general? In essence, to prove means to force your opponent to change his mind and this force usually cause a counter-force to reject or doubt any facts. For example, if someone says that the sun revolves around the earth and as a proof for it points out the evident fact of the sun's motion through the sky, another man may say - not at all, it is a sort of optical illusion, the earth revolves around the sun - and give his reasonable proofs for this statement. And it can be the third, wise man, who would say - well, you folks are both right, the sun revolves around the earth, if you are sitting on the earth, and the earth revolves around the sun, if you are sitting on the sun - his argument may, apparently, reconcile the opponents without any additional proof.
Student: Yes, I also noticed that sometimes a good argument might be stronger than a bunch of facts.
Expert: Look. The fact is not such an irrefutable thing, as it seems to be for empiricist. For instance, you have some document compromising some politician. If the politician says that it is a forgery and applies to the court, the court may send this document to the expertise for verification. The expertise may say that it is not a forgery. But the politician may say that the expertise has been bribed, that it is a political case and ask for another expertise. If the result would be the same, he, nevertheless, may say the same thing, and offer his experts for the expertise. In this case will win, obviously, those, who has more patience, power and financial or moral support from the people. And we know a lot of cases, when the facts were disputed in such a way.
Student: But some scientist may say that scientific facts are of another kind than the ones in jurisprudence.
Expert: I don't think so. Fact, obviously, is always a fact, independently the area it is used.
Student: Well. What could you say, indeed, about the claim, that the results of the experimental approach are universal in the sense that they can be reproduced by any skeptic?
Expert: Again, I would agree with it only with some corrections. It depends how to understand the verb can. Of course, theoretically any physical experiment can be reproduced. That is what the students do in their school physical labs. But most of the modern experiments are very expensive, so practically just a few sacred physicists may produce or reproduce it. The rest need to believe these scientists, until there is a competing rich organization (or skeptical person), that would finance the reproducing.
On the other hand, there is an ambiguity in the phrase. The results of the experimental approach are universal - what does it mean? Does it mean that the results of experiments will always be the same? But to provide this is, obviously, out of power of any observer or experimenter. So, actually, it would be more correct to say that the results of the experimental approach are not universal in the sense that only a very rich skeptic may disprove some of them.
Student: Hmm... By the way, do you know what the author may mean by Nature, from the capital letter?
Expert: You may try to ask him directly, but I doubt he will answer you. They call it sometime as Mother Nature, and this looks like some supernatural (sounds funny, isn't it?) Being, which workings they study. It is something like the God for theists, if I am not mistaken. But, in difference with a lot of books about Father God, I haven't met any book so far, which would answer a question - who is Mother Nature?
Student: So, is it mostly just a figure of speech?..
Expert: ... or a kind of unconscious faith without a try to understand it's subject. It is strange, but most of physicists, even the famous and respectable Nobel prizemen, are often quite unsure about the philosophical foundation of their science. They are, probably, too busy with the details...
2.
Student: I think, we distracted a little bit from the point. So, let me continue with the next of my notes.
Expert: Sure.
Student: The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions, which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
Expert: Yes, this is a rather clear outline of the scientific method, and since the question is very important for winnowing the truth let us see thoroughly through all of the steps of this summary.
Student:1. Observe some aspect of the universe...
Expert: It sounds very simple, isn't it? Just observe some aspect of the universe... What's wrong? But at least two of the words of this phrase are ambiguous. When somebody says to me - observe some side of your house, I know what to observe, but if somebody says me - observe some aspect of the universe, I need to ask him - sorry, but what is the universe, some aspect of which I am supposed to observe? If I am a serious man, who doesn't want to play cat-and-mouse, such a question is quite inevitable.
Student: Don't you think, we complicate the matter?
Expert: No. If somebody says to me - do something good! - it would be naturally, to ask him what do you mean by good, wouldn't it? And there is a very ancient and respectable philosophical science called ethics, which is, in essence, nothing but a long detailed answer to this question.
Student: But would it be fair to compare good and universe?
Expert: Why not? They are the concepts of the same kind. If you think that the concept of universe is something self-evident, which you may just take for granted, you are strongly mistaken. There are a lot of interpretations of the word universe, and, unfortunately, none of them is generally accepted.
Student: What namely?
Expert: To be short, I recall at least three main concepts of the universe. The first defines the universe as the creation of God, some Supreme Being, who created and maintains it for some purposes. The second opinion calls the universe as Cosmos and ascribes to it some rational and moral attributes. And, finally, the third view tracts the universe as a sort of self-sufficient perpetual motion machine, which is governed by some built-in laws at the head of the law of cause and effect, and all things and bodies are just the screws of this machine. The latter is a privileged view of all natural sciences.
Student: And you forgot the view we discussed above in which universe is a complex of workings of Nature. As far as I know, the very word physics comes from Greek nature. I would be interested, indeed, in more details of these concepts.
Expert: Well, it is a subject for a separate conversation. For now the most important thing is that there are a few different theories of the universe.
Student: But could we take it in a more simple way? Say, label as universe the collection of all our experiences and observations? Or adopt a well-known definition of the universe as the totality of all things?
Expert: Yes, of course, but in this case the phrase aspect of the universe seems to loose its meaning. Really, aspect are aspect of the whole, but not just a collection of aspects. In this case, the first and most important step of the scientific method - observe some aspect of the universe would sound like observe some aspect of your collection of aspects, or observe some thing from the totality of all thing, which is ridiculous.
Student: Ok, so let us observe some thing! May we go to the next step?
Expert: Yes, we may, but it could be useful to recall the meaning of the verb observe as well. Videlicet, the difference between see and observe. Speaking easier, if in order to see you need just open your eyes, in order to observe you need, apparently, to have an idea of what you are going to observe. You need to have a concept of the object of observation before observing; otherwise your observation would be objectless. In that sense any observation must be pre-concepted. Jose Wudka himself writes a theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. But what about the primary observation, where from do we get a framework to make them?
Student: So, is the first step of the great Scientific Method wrong?
Expert: I wouldn't say wrong or right until the end of the analysis. We will see it later. Go on.
Student:2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
Expert: Well, I remember somebody said that most of the problems of modern science are in the bad language. I don't know if it's true, but sometimes it definitely looks like that. I have met the word description a lot of times in the scientific literature of different kinds, but I still may only wonder - what exactly does it mean?
Student: Describe, according to the Webster's dictionary, means to picture in words...
Expert: Yes, but in this case it certainly means something different. Do you think my table is an aspect of the universe?
Student: Why not?
Expert: So, I observe my table and describe it to you in a certain way like big, wooden, black, with four legs, etc. What kind of a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with that you have observed I can invent?
Student: I don't know.
Expert: Me also. That is a misnomer I mentioned. Description of the table is, apparently, always consistent with the table, if only you have no mental disorder.
Student: So, what do they mean by the step two?
Expert: I would like to ask the author himself, without it we can only guess... Nevertheless, I might offer something to clarify.
Student: Very interesting...
Expert: Well, if we take a preconception studied at our school physical lessons about the universe as, say, an all-sufficient perpetual motion machine, or working Nature, we may observe some of this workings called phenomena, and describe it in a formal way. For example, we may observe the phenomenon of gravitation. We can measure a lot of cases of gravitation and try to seek some regularity in them. Then we can tentatively describe the force of gravitation as directly proportional to the product of the masses of gravitating bodies and in inverse proportion to the distance between them. Then we may predict the gravitational force for another pair of bodies.
Student: That is exactly what the step number three says to us.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
Expert: Yes, then we may see that our hypothesis doesn't fit with the new measurement. We need to correct the inverse proportional part of our description by putting a square of distance.
Student: That is exactly what the fourth step is.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
Expert: And then we can see that there is still a difference between our expectations and experiments, so we may admit the existence of some constant, permanent for all cases.
Student: That is a final step of scientific technology.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Expert: So, the last thing we need to do is to measure the exact meaning of the gravitational constant and then...
Student: ... When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions, which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
Expert: Long live the Scientific Method - a reliable tool for winnowing the truth!
Student: But...
Expert: What?
Student: There are some questions still remaining.
Expert: What kind of questions?
Student: First of all - how did we invent the hypothesis? We didn't invent it as the real inventors do. We used the abstract notions of force, mass, distance, which belongs to another conditional physical theory called mechanics. So, before describing the phenomenon of gravitation we, obviously, needed to pre-select a theory as a basement for our hypothesis. We were partial.
Expert: Right. And the mechanics, in its turn, is a main framework of the mechanical worldview. So, again, just like for observation we need to have some picture of the world, or some global worldview for inventing the hypothesis. What is the next question, indeed?
Student: Does the law of gravitation really explain the observations? Yes, it seems to provide us with a formal quantitative description of the phenomenon, but does it give us an essential qualitative explanation of it? Really, explanation logically means interpretation of something complex by using something more simple and clear. The concepts of force and mass, adopted in physics, though sound simple and common, are rather complex to understand in full, and there is no final agreement still between the fundamental physicists themselves about the exact meaning of these concepts. So, in this case we are trying to explain something through something more complex, which is, seemingly, hard to call a real explanation.
Expert: I think, you are quite correct with your statement about the quantitative character of scientific description. Now it is getting clear what might it mean. But I would like to attract your attention to another point.
Student: What namely?
Expert: I think, the five steps described above might be completed with the sixth, which would sound like that:
6. When you have enough theories, describing some classes of phenomena, try to create a worldview from these theories, which would explain all phenomena.
Really, the final goal of the science is, apparently, the so-called scientific worldview. Otherwise, the value of science would be much less attractive and close to the value of folk wisdom.
Student: I think, Mr. Wudka would agree with that, since he had chosen the following epigraph for the chapter about the scientific method
Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe...
Expert: And actually, we see some strong efforts in physics to create the so-called Theory of Everything. Thousands of scientists are working hardly to contribute to this product, making their measurements and calculations, experiments and observations. And they hope in the triumph of scientific worldview, scientific theory of the universe. But, as we could see from the above analysis, such theory, which supposed to be the end of the chain, is unconsciously presumed at the very beginning, as some fixing block for the whole chain.
Student: I remember some kind of the similar mistake from my lessons of logic.
Expert: Yes, it is when you get as your conclusion something that you already had in your premise. In our case this is a natural worldview.
I would like to add something about the step number 5, indeed. It says, that we need to repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. There are no discrepancies here, obviously, means, there were no discrepancies observed so far. If there will be any discrepancies in our tomorrow's experiment or observation we just don't know.
Student: Wait, I can see another lines of the author relevant to this point.
A hypothesis is a working assumption. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.
Expert: Again and again, if the hypothesis holds water here and now, it doesn't meant it holds it in general, always and everywhere! A pail, which holds water, always may start to leak. So, there is no a valid right to declare your hypothesis as a theory, since though there are no discrepancies today, they may appear tomorrow. In this sense a hypothesis will never pass the test of a very careful researcher to be adopted as a theory! I would advice to call a hypothesis, confirmed by some repeated experiments as a working description and leave the word theory for a real theory, based upon the indispensable theoretical thinking. By the way, the very meaning of a word theory - orig., a mental viewing; contemplation - confirms it.
3
Student: Let me continue with my notes.
The great advantage of the scientific method - writes the author of the Physics 7 next - is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false... A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable... Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.
Expert: As far as I remember, we talked about the free reproducing of the experiments at the very beginning. Namely, that one needs to have enough money and authority to do it. Again, alas, repeatable are not the results of experiments, but only experiments themselves. And now we know that one' needs also to have a general concept of the universe to investigate some of it's aspects. But the most interesting in this piece is a phrase logical proof. If you remember, at the very beginning, speaking about Aristotle, the author opposed logical arguments and proofs. Now, he seems to identify them.
Student: Yes, I noticed for a lot of times that many naturalists are dealing with the logic in a rather strange way - they use it as an ally, when it works on their behalf, and ignore it, when it contradicts with their expectations.
Expert: I don't think, that such game with logic make their views more attractive for the people. What is next there?
Student:When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws.
Expert: Stop for now. This is a very, very important issue. The question sounds in the following way: how can physical theorists code some regularity in the observations into physical laws?
Student: Easily. They do it all the time...
Expert: ...at their own risk. Seriously, I mean what logical right do they have to do that?
Student: I am curious...
Expert: First of all let us figure out what is understood by the physical laws here. Let us open, say, a popular Compton's Encyclopedia and read the article devoted to Physics.
Physics attempts to describe and explain the physical universe. Physicists therefore try to discover one or more laws (meaning invariable principles of nature at work) which will explain a large class of phenomena.
Student: I don't understand completely, what is nature at work, but it is clear from the piece that the physical laws are invariable principles.
Expert: Invariability in space and time is expressed by the words always and everywhere in speech. We may check it in a very easy way. Newton's law of gravitation may be briefly formulated like that: all bodies gravitate to each other with a certain force. Could you imagine another interpretation - some bodies sometimes gravitate to each other with some force?
Student: I think, Newton wouldn't like such formula of his law.
Expert: I agree. Or, "the angle of incidence sometimes is equal to the angle of reflection.
Student: Sounds rather funny.
Expert: So, invariability in space and time is supposed to be an inherent demand for any physical law. But let us see, if and how this demand is fulfilled at work. Scientists observe some regularity in their observations. Good. But what warrants that this regularity observed in the past will keep in the future? That is the question... Usually it is said that because it's a law of nature. But this is the very thing need to be proved!
Student: I would dare to add, that the results of physical experiments and observation are, obviously, responsible only for these specific experiments or observations. Let us imagine that a lot of scientists observed a certain phenomenon through the human history and saw some regularity in all cases, without exception. But this without exception is effective, evidently, up to the first possible exception in the future. Moreover, it wouldn't be correct to say that this regularity existed before the start of observations, because nobody did any measurements at that time.
Expert: Any observed regularity is of, if one could say, so far type. So far our observations showed us this regularity, so far our experiments had the same results, etc. If this or any regularity existed before the beginning of scientific experimentation, or will be in the future, we can not say. If there will be no regularity tomorrow, it must not surprise us, because it would mean merely that some conditions have been changed and the regularity observed in a certain area through a certain period of time is not working more.
Student: Ok, but how to explain from this point of view the fact that scientists often predict some phenomena without mistake? May be that supports invariability?
Expert: Unfortunately, no. The fact that the prediction has realized witnesses, apparently, just that the regularity observed so far is still working, but there is still no guarantee that the next prediction will have come true also. At the same time, if the prediction hasn't been realized at the moment of experiment or observation, it may, obviously, come true in the next experiments or observations, so there is no reason to make any hasty judgement about the error of predictor.
Student: So, predictions don't help us a lot, irrespective of the fact of its possible verification. But... if the scientists may not conclude for sure about the invariability of a certain phenomenon from their experiments and observations, may they speak, by analogy, at least about the high probability of the same results in the future?
Expert: Again no, if they want to be logically consistent. It may sounds paradoxically, but it is so. As far as I know, probability in general is a ratio of present to probable. In our case it would be a ratio of the collected experiments and observations to the probable ones. By the scientific experience, compared with the world history, exist, one might say, from yesterday. But even if this experience would continue for millions of years, it would be still close to zero in a cosmic scale. So close to zero would be an empiric probability of the invariability observed.
Student: Well, but how do empirical scientists avoid all of these problems?
Expert: In the absence of rational foundations, they use some foundations that sound rather strange from the empiric point of view. These are the famous postulate that the nature is the same and invariant in its workings or that the universe, as a physical system, does not have any cards up its sleeve. Such postulates are similar to the famous statements of ancient scholastics that the nature doesn't tolerate the vacuum, doesn't make leaps, etc. But what is forgivable for the scholastics, who generally admitted the existence of eternal principles, is not forgivable for the modern empiricists, who trust finally only in observations and experiments. Moreover, the nature itself for the most physicists is only an abstraction from the present observations and experiences, and is nothing apart of its collection.
Student: So, in this case they try to prove the invariability of the regularities upon the simple statement of this invariability. It looks like a vicious circle, indeed...
Expert: Or in formal logic it is called to prove idem per idem, the same through the same. So, we see that, from the experimental point of view, there is no rational right to code regularities, extracted from experiments and observations, into physical (invariable) laws. When some scientists do it, they, obviously, do a sort of logical somersault. They criticize their religious opponents, but this somersault is nothing that a leap of faith in the invariable laws of nature...
Student: We could make a curious analogy with the theism. As in it, there are physicists, who believe in many laws - poly-lawism - and those, who believe in mono-lawism, that is a doctrine that all laws are varieties of one profound Law. Nevertheless, I think, that the empiric scientists would, theoretically, be able to code regularities into laws, by only under one condition.
Expert: What condition?
Student: That all possible experiments and observations in space and time have been made and studied already. But this is, apparently, quite impossible.
Expert: I agree. Of course, such up-to-the-first-exception laws, extracted from the so-called scientific experience may have and really have some practical value. Just like a folk omen has. But the science, in difference with the folk wisdom, has a theoretic purpose of establishing of the real physical laws, universal and eternal.
Student: Here is one more remark about the natural laws:
In my opinion there is an interesting issue connected with the conflict between the Bible and Aristotle. It was Aristotle's belief that there are rules which objects are, by their very nature, forced to obey without the need for divine intervention. It is this idea that is prevalent in science today: there are natural laws that determine the behavior of inanimate objects without the intervention of higher authority. It is always possible to argue who or what determines these natural laws, whether there is some underlying will behind all of this. But that lies beyond the reach of science (at least in its present form), not because the question is of no interest, but because it cannot be probed using the reliable framework provided by the scientific method.
Expert: I think, you may see yourself - one does not have to believe a given researcher and It was Aristotle's belief..., A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent...and It is this idea that is prevalent in science today... So, obviously, according to the unprejudiced scientific method we must follow Aristotle's belief on the convincing power of a prevalent today's idea! But it was the author himself, who told that Aristotle believed that males and females have different number of teeth! Where is logic, pardon?
Student: Not too much. Moreover, there are rules which objects are, by their very nature, forced to obey, but the scientific method doesn't give us any hope to probe this very nature, which we, apparently, must accept for granted, like cat in a bag!
Expert: So, for some reason we are required to accept the rules and ignore the very nature of the objects, on which these rules are based upon. Good proposal, nothing to say... But we need to return to the topic.
4
Student: So, finally we came to realizing that eternal and universal principles can not be derived from the temporal and local facts and observations, in spite of whatever huge amount of these facts we would collect and generalized. But how, indeed, these principles may be obtained at all?
Expert: Since we analyze the scientific method here, it would be irrelevant to answer this question in a full way. Indeed, I can give you a hint. Let us look at some simple statement: a triangle has three angles. How can we test it empirically?
Student: We may patiently collect all triangles and count the number of angles carefully in all cases. It would be, indeed, rather expensive and demand a lot of time and efforts!
Expert: And after the measuring of all triangles on the Earth, we would be, from the empiric point of view, still unsure if there were no triangles with, say, four angles in the remote past or will be not in the distant future. And, besides, it is still a possibility for such triangles somewhere in the neighbor galaxy, where from we have no experimental data still.
Student: But why do we need all of these measurements? Is it not clear, that a triangle has three angles by definition?
Expert: Yes, of course! Without any experiment or observation, without bothering to check we may say that all triangles always and everywhere have three angles by the very meaning of this word. If there are two, four or five angles - it is definitely not a triangle! This is really universal and eternal principle, which doesn't depend on any fact or observation and which itself conditions any fact of empirical triangle by prescribing the exact number of angles.
Student: So, despite all efforts of agnostics, we may have some knowledge about the eternal and universal principles!
Expert: Yes, but this knowledge is not based upon the observations and experiments, it is based upon our logical thinking or speculation. A simple act of speculation - a triangle has three angles - has brought us a small piece of this kind of knowledge.
Student: We have an interesting paradox, indeed. Speculation, from the empiric point of view, looks like something quite subjective, equal to fiction. But now, by means of our example with a triangle, we may see that, on the contrary, experience in general and so called scientific experience in particular, are quite subjective as connected with the certain persons in certain places and times, while speculation, as discovering eternal and universal principles, is completely objective and unprejudiced.
Expert: Yes, but, as you may see, we get to this conclusion only through speculation, so this may be a reason for the most radical empiricists to ignore it. But I think the above arguments could be quite convincing for all people of good sense. Do you have anything more in your notes?
Student: Yes. Could you clarify me, please, the following piece:
There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis, which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue.
Expert: Well, this falsifiability principle is familiar for me. Simply speaking, any theory based upon the facts and experiments may be false.
Student: That was the meaning I supposed. I have some quotes of Mr. Wudka, which seem to confirm it.
Scientific theories have various degrees of reliability and one can think of them as being on a scale of certainty... Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them ever actually reach it.
Even the most beautiful theory can be annihilated by a single ugly fact.
But even the best of theories have, time and again, been shown to be incomplete: though they might explain a lot of phenomena using a few basic principles, and even predict many new and exciting results, eventually new experiments (or more precise ones) show a discrepancy between the workings of nature and the predictions of the theory. In the strict sense this means that the theory was not ``true'' after all; but the fact remains that it is a very good approximation to the truth, at lest where a certain type of phenomena is concerned.
Expert: Being clarified like that a statement that any empiric theory may be false is an obvious truism. But it seems to me that I understand what he really wanted to say.
Student: What?
Expert: Let us see some person, who says that his theory is true. And he adds also, that if anybody thinks different, it means that he (or she) just doesn't understand it completely. In this case a theory of this person is not falsifiable, or it may not be wrong. Anybody, considering it as a wrong one, needs better understanding, until he will be agree. In this case, such a theory is, really, nothing but a demand of faith without permit for any reflection.
Student: It looks like I start to understand something...
Expert: But let us think of our example with a triangle again. A theoretical conclusion that all triangles always and everywhere have three angles sounds like a non-falsifiable theory, on the face of it. But this is completely another case, apparently. According to the falsifiability principle, there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. Does it mean that it may be an experiment, resulting in the discovering of a four-angled triangle?
Student: I can imagine, what would people think of somebody saying, I have discovered a four-angled triangle!
Expert: So, we see, that some logical conclusions may not be false, or may not be falsifiable, since they are true by definition. No ugly facts may annihilate these conclusions. And, at the same time, such conclusions, obviously, are not the acts of faith, since, really, what kind of faith do we need to believe that any triangle has three angles?
Student: What are they then?
Expert: I would call them logical evidence, or something, if you wish, super-falsifiable, since we may be sure in their correctness a priori, that is without or before any experience or experiments. Moreover, we may check facts with the help of logical evidence. For example, if somebody comes to you and says that he observed four-angled triangle, you may for sure say to him, that it was an obvious illusion, since there is no such thing as four-angled triangle. If a thousand or million people will come to you and say they saw it also, it would still be nothing for you, as a logically thinking person. If a Nobel prizewinner will declare such a discovery, it again wouldn't be true. Four-angled triangles are impossible, since they are unthinkable (these two words are synonyms).
Student: Very curious. We have come to an interesting point by using a very simple example. Scientific method demands that we would check theories with the facts, observations and experiments, and now we see that, on the contrary, observations and facts must be checked with the logical thinking!
Expert: Right. Why do need we to forget that every fact may be an illusion or dream? When I see a very realistic dream, in which I smell, taste, see, hear or even touch something, what is the principal difference between it and the real experience? Such question lied in the foundation of every big circle of philosophical development. May we base our theories upon the observational data obtained in a dream? Scientists would probably say no, but what is a criterion for recognition? Facts as such are not a proper basement for any theory; they may not prove any theory. The only thing they may do for sure is, obviously, to indicatethe current state of things - nothing more. A working description of the current state, indicated by the facts observed, is the best theory we may create from the empiric point of view. And as I already said, such description may have some applied meaning, but since the state of thing may change every second it doesn't have any theoretical, that is eternal and universal, value.
A true theory, not the falsifiable one, which may turn to be false any time somewhere, must, so to speak, stand by itself. That is, it must have a point of rest in something more solid and less subjective than facts and observations. If physical theory needs observational props, it will fall immediately if these empirical crutches will turn to be a falsification, aberration or illusion. Moreover, there is always a temptation for a theoretician (or group of theoreticians) to hide or cut any other unwanted prop, if it doesn't fit his (their) theory. Or try to adjust the theory to the new prop, if it is impossible. In contrast, a theory like any triangle has three angles is a simple, but good example of such firm theory, which needs no props or crutches to stand fast independently of any possible experiments.
Modern physicist and astronomers often blame the thinking of the ancients to be anthropocentric. But is it not a new subtle anthropocentrism, when our subjective human observations and experiments with devised by the human devices are declared as the main basement for inventing of universal principles and laws? As far as I know, even the most radical scientists admit that we are not the only one observers in this world...
Student: So, does it mean that the Scientific Method is wrong?
Expert: I wouldn't say it is wrong, I would say it is just insufficient for creating any durable theory or worldview. Again, it is OK for making working descriptions of the current state of things. But if you are searching for a logically consistent elegant theory, you need to search for another foundation, than experiments or observations.
Student: What kind of foundation?
Expert: Logically consistent worldview, obviously, ought to explain all the phenomena from a certain point of view with the help of so called laws of logical thinking, or dialectics, which are consequences of the main logical law of identity, A=A. Any theorist must have logic and dialectic (or dialogic, speaking easier) method as his main tool, not facts or observations, which, as nobody would reject, may be debatable or openly false. In some sense any theorist is a spider, who spins his worldview like a sort of the World Wide Web. And this web explains the facts, connecting them in one whole, and by this tests them for trustworthiness, winnowing the true facts from lies and delusion. Student: So, the only one thing I need to create a theory is to study formal logic?
Expert: No. Formal (or mathematical) logic is a good thing to know, but it is not enough. You need to have a correct point of view, the main principle, for your worldview. You may create a few formally consistent worldviews from different points of view. And, as everybody knows, one fact may have different interpretations from the different points of view.
Student: So are all of the points of view equivalent?
Expert: There is a view, called pluralism, which postulates them as equivalent. There is no vantage point of viewing the world, either visible or speculative, according to this vision. Really, there is no temporal and local point of view, which needs to be considered as special. In this sense they are equivalent. But along with the infinite number of local and temporal points of view, we must admit, obviously, an existence of one universal and eternal point of view. And any theory or worldview, if it pretends to the universal meaning, must base upon this point of view.
Student: But how can we get this point?
Expert: Well, it is a hard question. In some sense, the whole history of philosophical and ideological thinking is a struggle for an accurate point of view. Every ism or ity declares itself as an exclusively correct doctrine, rejecting all the rest. And the very preliminary criteria for the universal and eternal point of view is that, instead of rejecting, it must explain what is wrong and what is right with all other doctrines. It must be a sort of a synthesis (not eclectic compilation or mixture!) of all possible points of view. But, again, it is just a formal criterion, which doesn't give us an accurate point of view itself.
Student: So, do you think it is possible for a scientist to stand upon the objective (eternal and universal) point of view?
Expert: Yes, I think it is possible, and all of our true knowledge comes from this. But the explanation of how is it possible, I think, deserves a different talk. For now, we have nothing to do than admit that the scientist can view all phenomena from the correct point. Otherwise we need to give up to agnostics.
Student: I think, it can be a good time for us to make some conclusions of our analysis.
Expert: Yes, and we will try to do it in the final part of our discussion.