Philosophy
I gave a talk to a group of parents last Friday and asked whether we should believe atoms are real. The group overwhelmingly thought it was a silly question until one parent, clearly a scientist, piped up and informed everyone that atoms are not directly observed, but merely a part of our best current model.
Models, I mentioned, are not true or false, but better or worse. A model airplane may be good if it looks like an airplane, but it may not be as good as another model that bears a stronger resemblance. Scientists use models all the time, indeed many contemporary philosophers of science see scientific theories as sets of models. A theory is successful if the actual system in the world bears a significantly strong resemblance relationship to the posited model, where the resemblance is strong if it allows us to make a wide enough array of successful predictions that it suits our needs.
Of course, every theory will eventually be replaced with a better theory. What does this mean for the way we understand the relationship between theories and the world?
Realists contend that we have good reason to think that we should understand our scientific theories literally, that is, we have good reason to believe that the world actually looks the way described by our best theories. Instrumentalists hold theories to merely be useful tools in providing images by which we can work with systems and produce further results, but one should not confuse a successful tool with a description of some underlying reality.
So, should we believe that atoms are real and if so, why?
- Is Theater Like Science?
A few weeks back, Gwydion wrote a post on his blog asking if theater is like science? I replied arguing that theatrical writing is not only exactly like science, but could be seen as a form of applied sociology. What scientists produce are models,...
- Singularities And Scientism
C. Ewing asks, "how do we reconcile conservation of mass with singularities?"Short answer, we don't. Longer answer: Einstein's theory of general relativity accounts for gravitation in terms of a curvature of space with a fraction x/y. Under certain...
- The Metaphysics Of Money
Been thinking about money. Sciences describe the behavior of observable systems. In physics, there are empirical terms that are directly measurable, things like mass and distance. We know that these things are real as far as we can know that anything...
- Grade Inflation, Baseball, And The Semantic View Of Theories
Got a whole bunch of good questions from former students. Here's a couple more. Soul Searcher asks a number of questions. Here's one, What is the best way to combat grade inflation? I'm teaching a course (first semester organic) right now...
- Philosophy Of Science At The Supreme Court
It's not often that philosophers of science get to talk about cases before the Supreme Court, but the high court just heard arguments concerning the scope of patents and medical discoveries that raises interesting questions about the nature of scientific...
Philosophy
Are Atoms Real?
I gave a talk to a group of parents last Friday and asked whether we should believe atoms are real. The group overwhelmingly thought it was a silly question until one parent, clearly a scientist, piped up and informed everyone that atoms are not directly observed, but merely a part of our best current model.
Models, I mentioned, are not true or false, but better or worse. A model airplane may be good if it looks like an airplane, but it may not be as good as another model that bears a stronger resemblance. Scientists use models all the time, indeed many contemporary philosophers of science see scientific theories as sets of models. A theory is successful if the actual system in the world bears a significantly strong resemblance relationship to the posited model, where the resemblance is strong if it allows us to make a wide enough array of successful predictions that it suits our needs.
Of course, every theory will eventually be replaced with a better theory. What does this mean for the way we understand the relationship between theories and the world?
Realists contend that we have good reason to think that we should understand our scientific theories literally, that is, we have good reason to believe that the world actually looks the way described by our best theories. Instrumentalists hold theories to merely be useful tools in providing images by which we can work with systems and produce further results, but one should not confuse a successful tool with a description of some underlying reality.
So, should we believe that atoms are real and if so, why?
- Is Theater Like Science?
A few weeks back, Gwydion wrote a post on his blog asking if theater is like science? I replied arguing that theatrical writing is not only exactly like science, but could be seen as a form of applied sociology. What scientists produce are models,...
- Singularities And Scientism
C. Ewing asks, "how do we reconcile conservation of mass with singularities?"Short answer, we don't. Longer answer: Einstein's theory of general relativity accounts for gravitation in terms of a curvature of space with a fraction x/y. Under certain...
- The Metaphysics Of Money
Been thinking about money. Sciences describe the behavior of observable systems. In physics, there are empirical terms that are directly measurable, things like mass and distance. We know that these things are real as far as we can know that anything...
- Grade Inflation, Baseball, And The Semantic View Of Theories
Got a whole bunch of good questions from former students. Here's a couple more. Soul Searcher asks a number of questions. Here's one, What is the best way to combat grade inflation? I'm teaching a course (first semester organic) right now...
- Philosophy Of Science At The Supreme Court
It's not often that philosophers of science get to talk about cases before the Supreme Court, but the high court just heard arguments concerning the scope of patents and medical discoveries that raises interesting questions about the nature of scientific...