The Nature of Scientific Theories: Models or Truths?
Written on
Chapter 1: Understanding Scientific Models
Scientists frequently assert that their theories are merely "models." But is this truly the case? The answer can vary significantly depending on the specific scientific discipline under discussion.
In my view, science has, in many instances, revealed astonishing truths about the workings of the universe. At times, it feels as though we are touching "the finger of God." Let me explain my perspective on this matter.
Consider the notion of merely "curve fitting." In some situations, our theories may simply be identifying patterns and drawing mathematical lines through data points—akin to the predictive methods employed in contemporary data science. By processing sufficient data and adjusting enough parameters, one can seemingly explain a myriad of phenomena. While a model might align closely with observed data, it often serves merely as an approximation, leaving us uncertain about the underlying mechanisms at play.
Take, for example, attempts to forecast stock prices based on news articles. The predictions are frequently vague and imprecise. Similarly, while we can optimize parameters for industrial ovens to achieve ideal plastic molding results, we may still lack a comprehensive understanding of why those specific settings work best.
This brings us to mechanistic empiricism, where theories propose actual mechanisms. However, these models still condense complex details into simple measurable parameters, which can resemble curve fitting. Examples of such models include climate change projections, aerodynamics, and pandemic growth predictions. These theories rely on parameters that can only be estimated rather than precisely determined, much like the machine learning techniques that draw conclusions from observed data.
In contrast, I posit that there exist both qualitative (conceptual) and quantitative (numerical) foundational theories that stand as potential truths, rather than mere models. In these scenarios, the assertion that they are "just models" seems quite unfounded.
Section 1.1: Qualitative Truths in Science
Consider the periodic table, which encompasses around 100 chemical elements, or the roles of DNA and genes in shaping our biological functions. It is hard to argue that these are merely models. While they may not represent the 'ground-level' truths of quantum mechanics, they are undeniably significant and widely accepted facts.
Can anyone truly question the validity of these concepts? Is there any reasonable doubt that chemical substances are made up of nearly indestructible atoms, which come in approximately 100 distinct types? This atomic framework represents the fundamental reality of the materials that constitute our universe.
In the realm of biology, we refer to this understanding as "The Central Dogma" of molecular biology. We have amassed substantial evidence supporting these biological truths, enabling us to trace the journey of genes from DNA to RNA to proteins and their corresponding functions.
Section 1.2: The Foundations of Physics
At the most fundamental level, physics appears to have accessed a quantitative truth that underpins all other scientific domains. This assertion is based on several compelling reasons:
- The fundamental particles (leptons, quarks, and bosons) and forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong nuclear, and gravity) may represent the essential nature of the universe.
- Theoretical calculations can derive everything else from these fundamental elements.
- Current theories align remarkably well with experimental outcomes, achieving accuracy within one part in ten billion (for example, the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron).
- Many theories contain few fitted parameters but can explain a wide range of experiments accurately within acceptable error margins, showcasing their parsimony.
- When parameters are fitted, they often represent tangible realities like the mass of an electron or the speed of light.
- These theories are typically expressed succinctly, with little to no extraneous detail.
- Numerous advancements have originated from theoretical propositions that coincidentally matched reality after in-depth calculations.
Chapter 2: The Philosophical Implications
I strongly contend that our current understanding of fundamental forces, particles, chemical elements, and the genetic basis of life, while not flawless, can be viewed as authentic truths of the universe rather than mere models.
Some purists might take issue with my stance. However, I remain steadfast in my belief. There may be improved or alternative descriptions in the future, but the likelihood of such developments for these theories seems slim.
Can anyone genuinely envision a more accurate explanation for the existence of chemical elements? The notion that there are approximately 100 stable arrangements of protons and neutrons or that genes are not real seems implausible. The level of precision achieved with these low-parameter theories suggests that we are not simply indulging in parameter fitting.
Philosophy of science raises intriguing questions. Do those who claim that theories are "just models" truly engage with the realities of scientific practice? Have they experienced the nuances of data fitting versus empirical theories versus fundamental physics?
The first video, "Yes, All Scientific Models Are Wrong. But In Which Way Is Crucial," delves into the complexities of scientific modeling and the implications of asserting that all models are flawed.
The second video, "Why Science is NOT 'Just a Theory'," explores the misconceptions surrounding scientific theories and the rigorous processes that validate them.
Ultimately, the mathematical nature of our universe suggests that some of these constructs are not merely models; they represent the fundamental rules governing reality.