 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| English__---> | Espanol____/ | Deutsch____/ | Francais____/ | Italiano____/ | Portuguese |
Philosophy of Science - problems in philosophy of physics
Homepage .
Albert Einstein .
Isaac Newton .
Rene Descartes .
William Gilbert ........
General Image Theory
|
Science, or 'natural philosophy', emerged in the 1500's as a new way of establishing truths relating to our universe - and as a challenge to the philosophy which till then had considered that as its domain. While scientists often presented their ideas as 'theories', most of them certainly considered that they were dealing with provable fact - unlike the 'mere theorising' of philosophy and religion though such might also have truths. But little is taught on the basic conflict of philosophy and science, and how they deal with the basic questions of truth and error discussed below. Can any science theory be definitely proven true, and if that is possible then exactly how can any science theory be definitely proven true or definitely proven untrue ? | |||
Problems with science philosophy.
Science developed as a new means of proving truths, against the many errors presents as truths by the older philosophers like Aristotle that were often backed by churches and governments.
So to start with, there are three basic ways in which people have considered that a truth might be demonstrated ;
1. GOD. Some hold that there must definitely be a god, and that therefor what are necessary consequences of that must also be definite truths A, B, which can be used in combination with some logic and observation to demonstrate a wider range of definite truths. In this science philosophy the god truths are the fundamental truths to which universe truths are secondary, perception being uncertain and god coming before and creating the universe. Rene Descartes took this as the general philosophy of his physics, and others have taken this general position.
2. LOGIC. Some hold that starting from some few definite truths, logical deduction can be used to demonstrate a wider range of definite truths. This can involve seeing both god and perception as being uncertain, and debated logic as being more reliable. Measured observation often showed that mathematically definable laws applied in nature, so mathematical logic seen as reliable could be used. The early Kepler and Albert Einstein perhaps basically took this as the philosophy of their physics, involving logic in combination with a little observation, and others have taken this general position.
3. OBSERVATION. Some hold that what you can be sure is true is basically what you can see and feel, and that verifiable observation is key to demonstrating truths. William Gilbert took this position strongly and experimental observation in combination with minimal logic became central to early science in demonstrating a wider range of proven truths. Basically confirmed perception is most certain, and
a theory was to be proved or disproved only by appropriate experimental observations fitting with it or conflicting with it. But measured observation showed that mathematics had a strong place in the universe, and mathematical logic was often taken as allowing more deduction in science.
However, each of these three things on their own can either be shown to contain some uncertainties or can demonstrate only a limited range of truths. This is why most scientists have supported using combinations of two or three of them, while often perhaps taking one as being more fundamental. The various positions taken on this by physicists have depended chiefly on their evaluation of three issues ;
A. On the use of logic in physics.
Early science generally supported observation with 'close logic' or 'minimal logic' involving only deductions that seemed to derive directly from experiments. This was seen as according with the fact that observation of our varied and complex universe repeatedly showed that its fundamental behaviours were relatively simple, and with Occam who concluded that logic is best when it involves minimal assumptions. This perhaps best suited small physics theories, as one theory for mechanics and another theory for planet motion etcetera. Each small theory would need few assumptions or deductions.
B. On the idea of simplicity in physics.
Early scientists tended to concentrate experiments on particular areas, such as mechanics or magnetism etcetera, and this helped them to conclude that nature basically followed simple laws. This supported the conclusion that a more simple science theory with fewer assumptions is more likely true than a less simple theory with more assumptions. But Isaac Newton changed that view somewhat when he showed that some one theory might explain both terrestrial gravity and planet motion - which till then had involved two different theories. If one theory with 4 assumptions could explain all that two theories each with 3 assumptions explained, then one more complex theory seemed relatively simpler than two absolutely simpler theories. So to some a more complex theory seemed acceptable if it explained more, science simplicity would have to be sacrificed to science coverage. So even Rene Descartes trying to produce a full-coverage physics theory from a simple mechanics base only, had to add complexities to try to cover gravity, magnetism and electricity.
C. On the fundamentals of physics.
Early physics first split into two camps as to what was really fundamental in our physical universe. Galileo, Descartes and others concluded that the universe was fundamentally mechanical - where its key properties were only matter solidity, matter motion and matter contact. But some like Gilbert concluded that the universe was fundamentally based on response to signals - where its key properties were only response to gravitation, magnetism, electricity and maybe other signals. Kepler, Einstein and others held as a third position that these 'signals' were neo-mechanical 'fields' and that these were fundamental if not exclusive in our universe. Of course some physicists concluded that nothing was exclusively fundamental, and accepted some two or three of these as being different aspects of our universe that are compatable. Physicists holding different positions on what is fundamental in the universe, have supported very different types of theories. And there is Isaac Newton and a few others holding that as science can only observe appearances and apparent behaviours, and not the actual causes of those, then a science theory should omit all unseen causes and must leave discussion of such fundamentals to philosophy. And more specifically Newton showed that if physics was to include unseen causes then there may be no scientific way to choose between two different physics and that one theory seeming right could not itself disprove an alternative theory which might also seem equally right.
D. On mathematics and physics.
Some see mathematical laws as fundamental in science, though mathematics certainly itself has problems for science. Hence Newton did not put his three laws of motion as mathematical equations for good reasons. Action and reaction being equal and opposite is generally handled in mathematics with positive and negative where nature has no negative. So gravity pulls on a body by two bodies either side of it are termed positive and negative and may yield zero, while no actual negative gravity is involved and the reality is quite different if bodies are closer than if they are farther though mathematics for both may yield the same zero.
The mathematics of different physics theories also often involves constants or other elements whose actual physical meaning is quite unclear or ambiguous so that they effectively represent physical unseens.
Opposite electric charges are undoubtedly both positive forces that can 'cancel out', but something having one of each is not the same as something having neither. And mathematics also can really only deal with futures or non-existants, like the idea of 'potential energy' ('energy which will exist if'), as if they actually exist when they do not. (this particular example achieved no mention in the classic laws of motion and laws of thermodynamics, and maybe only really fitted Gilbert active-matter theory, but is now taken by some an actual existant rather than a potential existant.) Of course special forms of mathematics like vector mathematics and others can seemingly 'solve' some of these issues, but generally mathematics and nature actually go together less easily than many imagine.
So what do these basic issues now indicate for our basic questions - can any science theory be definitely proven true, and if so then exactly how can a science theory be definitely proven true or definitely proven untrue ? Conside 3 types of theory ;
1. If we take a small science theory saying only that on Earth all bodies tend to fall towards the Earth with an acceleration whose value decreases as the square of its distance from the centre of the Earth. This says nothing about assumed causes, and only involves some generalisation of some verifiable observations. Most scientists would take that small science theory as fully provable, and perhaps as fully proved if many people had made many observations over many years. Would that still hold if observations were by only one person, and if observations were of only a few bodies and if observations were over only a small time period ? Most scientists would probably say that the theory could reasonably be taken as proven for as long as no observation conflicts with it, and taken as disproved as soon as one verifiable observation does conflict with it. This position of course involves the small theory never being definitely proved, but some would say that it is reasonable to take it as being definitely proved as long as it does not specify 'forever'.
2. If we take a somewhat larger science theory saying only that all bodies in the universe tend to move towards other bodies with an acceleration whose value decreases as the square of its distance from the centre of the other body and increases as the mass of the other body. This again says nothing about assumed causes, and only involves a greater generalisation of some verifiable observations. Most scientists would take that somewhat larger science theory as fully provable, and perhaps as fully proved if many people had made many observations over many years. But again would that still hold if observations were by only one person, and if observations were of only a few bodies and if observations were over only a small time period ? And some of the needed observation being of distant bodies, can their movements and masses truely be observed accurately ?
Some would probably say that this theory is less easily taken as fully proved because observations cannot ever easily cover the whole universe,
yet some would probably say that this theory is MORE easily taken as fully proved because it is logically simpler - it looks more inherent to matter and to be a priori and 'forever'.
In fact this theory of Newton was taken as proved but was later taken as disproved as some observations relating to distant bodies were claimed to conflict with it.
3. If we take a bigger science theory and it includes claimed explanations, then the proof question changes. But the changes are like the move from small theory to somewhat larger theory above, with observation reasons for accepting a big theory as being harder to prove but with 'simplicity' reasons to accept it as being easier to prove. A theory of everything needs only one set of assumptions, where several smaller theories need several sets of assumptions.
EXPERIMENT. Now on disproving a science theory, we have noted the idea that observation conflicting with a theory disproves it. Of course some observations may be less reliable than others, as perhaps with observing some light in the sky - are we truely directly observing some moving star accurately or has the light perhaps undergone some abberations of which we are unaware ? Such uncertainty may seem likely because of conflicting theories of light and perhaps limited knowledge of light. Hence Einstein's theory seems to require that light be gravitationally attracted to massive bodies which is a process tending to accelerate things, yet Einstein's theory also required that light could not be accelerated beyond the speed of light - and currently there certainly also remain other tricky light issues like assumptions regarding light 'red shifts'. Yet there are current physics and astronomy theories dependent on perhaps uncertain distant light observations.
INVENTION. With progress in science has generally come progress in useful inventions like TV and the internet, so that some might think of new inventions as proving a science theory true. However useful invention started before science and 'blind' experiment has given many inventions and new theories, though sometimes a science theory has prompted a new experiment and new invention. Science encourages invention less by the truth of science theory, than simply by science encouraging experiment. So even false science can help invention, and invention cannot be taken as reliable proof of the truth of any science theory. (one common false belief now is that nuclear power came from, and so proves, Einstein's theory - when it actually came from experiments on radioactivity progressing well before Einstein.)
RELATIVITY. If things like light and gravity are taken as being signals carrying information about source objects or events, then they might carry correct absolute information or they might be liable to abberations and then carry incorrect appearance information - and information may be modified by its observation and so be relative to the observer. Hence in considering a distant objects motion and mass, it may be neccessary to consider its absolute, apparant and relative motion and mass. But things like light and gravity are not only information signals, but also have some absolute effects on real objects so that perhaps the apparant or relative can also have absolute effects. And the effects on some bodies of signals that are in some respect relative, may be to some non-relative aspect of them. So normal debate underlying science theory, about taking things as being only absolutes as against taking things as being only apparant or relative, may be trying to distinguish the two too much - our universe undoubtedly includes both. And that fact affects how science theories should be proved or disproved.
Of course in reality most science theories will consist of some small set of basics essential to that theory, and some larger set of derived assumed consequential deductions. A theory may also include some explanation of its language terminology and usage which may or may not also include some elements essential to it.
The larger set of derived consequences in a theory is more likely to include some deduction errors that can be proved wrong. But proving some small inessential bits of a theory wrong does not actually disprove the theory, only disproving one of its essentials can fully disprove a theory. And sometimes it may not be clear exactly what the real essentials of a particular theory are. So an apparant disproof of a theory may not be a real disproof. It will often be easier to just push a new theory rather than to try to really disprove an old theory, and often new theories have mainly gained support that way - in fact leaving old theories disapproved but not disproved.
Experiment and observation conflicts are not the only things that have been taken as proving or disproving a science theory.
There are cases where a theory has been taken as disproved by a new theory, with no observation conflicts.
This displacing of one science theory by another can be on good science grounds as when a new theory has fewer assumptions, or can be actually on non-science grounds as when a new theory wins support for being better in line with the religion, politics or prevailing attitudes of the time. Even scientists are human. And in the end public 'proof' is what some humans take as proof, and may not always be definite proof. Definite proof may not always be possible in science, or elsewhere ?
MIND AND MATTER. One basic issue much disputed by both philosophers and scientists is the issue of Mind and Matter in the material universe.
Early pre-science philosophers generally allowed that both mind and matter exist, often requiring that mind be associated with some matter or with all matter but not existing alone.
As one of the first physicists William Gilbert concluded that his attraction theory experiments proved that all inanimate matter possesses some simple mind properties in being able to detect and respond automatically to magnetic, electric and gravity signals emitted by other matter. Allowing of simple mind in simple matter, and of complex mind and complex matter, allowed a complete 'mind from matter' theory.
The scientist/philosopher Rene Descartes concluded that there could be no mind beyond God and Humans, and that matter could not respond to anything and could only be pushed by contacts with other matter - a 'no mind' theory. He had no mechanism for the human mind to relate to the human body, and required animals to be mechanical clockwork robots.
As a philosopher George Berkeley concluded that in the material universe mind was certain and matter uncertain, allowing a 'no matter' theory.
Isaac Newton's blackbox theory basicaly concluded that any of these positions might be true but science could not prove which - a 'don't worry' theory. (though Newton was widely suspected of privately favouring Gilbert attraction theory)
Modern physics theory ignores the major issue of mind, vaguely claiming it is outside physics, though some modern information science does try to consider it as a physics issue. A minimum requirement for the claim that mind is outside of physics would seem to be a real physics disproof of attraction theory which nobody has really managed to produce yet and no modern physicist has even tried.
The Descartes, Berkeley and Newton positions on this general dispute was summed up in the philosopher or physicist ultimate phrase - "No matter ? Never mind !".
In common English the phrase 'no matter' has a double meaning as 'don't worry', and 'never mind' also has a double meaning as 'don't worry'. (the phrase may derive from the joke 'What is matter? - never mind. What is mind? - no matter.'
which was published in Punch and may have originated with Oscar Wilde.)
And there is the Blackbox Theory song by Bob Marley ;
Don't worry
about a thing.
Every little thing's
gonna be alright.
Gilbert-Newton 'attraction physics' was supported by some other physicists, and also by some notable people outside physics like the mixed-bag Priestley and the philosopher Kant.
Joseph Priestley rejected solidity and saw 'contact-collision' as just repulsion and saw another strength of attraction theory involving robot atoms responding to signals, rather than involving dead atoms, as better allowing of animal and human brains thinking processes. (History of Optics 1772, Disquisitions 1777)
And to Immanuel Kant for any theory attempting to replace attraction with push impacts, the very existence of spatially extended configurations of matter (as objects of above-zero radius) seems to need some sort of binding force to hold the extended parts of the object together. That force cannot be explained by pushing from other particles, because those particles too must hold together in the same way, so circular reasoning in physics is avoidable only if there exists a fundamental attractive force. (Metaphysics of Science 1786)
Though such support for attraction theory had little effect on physicists, it remains the case that there are some strong philosophic arguments in favour of attraction physics that Einstein and others have certainly failed to address.
Two websites to help inform you on what physicists and astronomers are up to lately are Physics Web and Universe Today.
For imperfect free online Latin translation see here.
Or you may want to learn a bit about Online dating, kissing, love, marriage and more.
otherwise, if you have any view or suggestion on the content of this site, please contact :- New Science Theory
Vincent Wilmot 166 Freeman Street Grimsby Lincolnshire DN32 7AT.
You are welcome to link to any page on this site, eg http://www.new-science-theory.com/albert-einstein.html
| ....This Homepage in some other languages :- |
Español | Français | Deutsch | Italiano | Portuguese |
© new-science-theory.com, 2008. - taking care with your privacy, see Privacy Policy or About Us or Sitemap.