Science Analysis
The late 19th and 20th centuries have seen advances in technology and
scientific
understanding the likes of which have not been seen before in such
a short
amount of time in known Human history. In the last hundred and fifty
years
science has advanced so much that one would barely recognize the
lifestyle of
Humans before all these technological wonders. In fact, if
the scientists and
thinkers of pre-industrial society had had a glimpse of
the technology available
to the average early 21st century man they would
probably surely think some sort
of sorcery was involved and would not believe
for one moment that all these
technological innovations were based on
concepts of the governing laws of the
universe that have applied all through
mankind's history. In fact, modern
science looks pretty solid when one
examines all of its wondrous creations and
the fact that new ones keep coming
out daily. For instance, it would appear that
modern science has correctly
solved the understanding of concepts and principles
which govern how
electricity flows in a circuit. After all, computers, hair
dryers, TV's and
other such electronic devices use this scientific understanding
to function
properly and in turn most people use such devices every day, thus is
this
science proven every time such a device is used successfully? It is easy
to
classify such scientific understanding as fact when devices built upon
the
science work and work very dependably at that. However is this science
fact as
would appear, or is merely conjecture based upon an observable
phenomenon?
Perhaps something entirely different happens when we throw
the switch on a light
bulb and it illuminates than what science says happens.
Even though the light
bulb lights up every time, that does not necessarily
mean that the scientific
understanding of how the light bulb works is true.
Take for instance the
scientific principles of projectile motion. In a
simplified form, current
physics explains that projectile motion is composed
of two components. A y
component which describes the objects path in a
vertical direction and the x
component which describes the object's motion in
relation to a horizontal
direction. This explanation show that projectiles
travel in an arc and its has
been proven countless times through experiment
upon experiment since its
original conception. However, the modern principles
of projectile motion is not
how scientists have always explained the
phenomenon. In fact, the theory
proposed by medieval scientists in
drastically different from what is now
accepted. This scientists of yesterday
tried to explain projectile motion from
what they observed and the most
likely example of projectile motion that a
medieval scientist would have seen
would be a catapult or some other similar
device. When someone on the ground
observes such a device in action it is hard
to see that the object moves in
an arc because the object is usually observed
from the back (hopefully not
the front) rather than from the side. Scientists
would observed that object
appeared to move up at a fairly constant rate then go
smashing into the
ground some distance later. Thus, the theory that they adopted
to explain
this motion was that an object had a certain amount of energy when it
was
thrown. This energy, which they called "impetus" caused the object
to go up
in a straight line at whatever angle it was fired at and once the
object
reached its maximum height, it used all of its impetus and fell straight
down
in a vertical line to the ground. This theory of projectile motion
existed
for some time and it was not until scientists such as Galileo started
conducting
sound scientific experiments that the modern ideas of projectile
motion were
formed. Thus it is evident that even if a device (the catapult in
the above
example) harnesses some phenomenon, the explanation for the
phenomenon is not
necessarily true just because the device works. This
example instead shows what
science really is. Science is an attempt by Humans
to explain the world around
us. When something is observed, a scientist
begins to propose ideas as to why
something is happening the way it is. The
scientist uses all the current
scientific theories to support his new idea
and also uses experimentation to
test the new idea. Over time through
experimentation the idea is refined and if
it appears to be sound then it is
accepted as theory. However, in the future a
new breakthrough may come about
which renders this old theory obsolete and
scientists at the time of the
discovery will realize that the previous theory
that was accepted as truth
was completely wrong. Perhaps many theories widely
believed today will become
obsolete upon new discoveries in the future and
future scientists will
dismiss ideas many modern scientists hold as truths just
as modern scientists
easily dismiss the medieval idea of impetus. Thus the
question arises once
again of whether science is fact or plausible fiction.
Science is fact,
however it is a different kind of fact than that of absolute
truth. Science
is best defined as "scientific fact". Scientific fact
is a generally accepted
explanation of reality and it is open at all times to
inquiry. This idea of a
scientific fact is definitely not an absolute fact, as
absolute truths exist
only in the realm of mathematics. Rather, facts in the
context of science are
explanations which seem to explain a phenomenon and which
hold in line with
other accepted scientific facts. Furthermore, there are
varying degrees of
scientific fact. For instance, theories in paleontology and
sub atomic theory
are much more prone to change over time with further
scientific discovery
than the concepts of Newtonian physics which have been
unchallenged for
hundreds of years. Therefore it is clear that as scientific
fact exists for
longer and longer periods of time without being disproved and
that new
theories are built upon the original theory that also appear to be
valid,
then that scientific fact approaches closer to absolute fact than
theories
which are newly formed. However, it is core to science being science
that no
theory can every be 100% absolute truth. Only by constantly questioning
a
scientific idea and searching for a better explanation is progress made
and
hence if one began accepting scientific facts as absolute facts, progress
would
cease. Thus science can be explained in terms of multiple scientific
facts.
However if these scientific facts can be disproved at any time,
how are they any
different than convincing fiction? Scientific fact as stated
above attempts to
approach absolute truth but can never actually be
absolutely true, however as
ideas are constantly improved upon they become
closer and closer to this
untouchable absolute truth. Sound scientific facts
can be reproduced by any
scientist and are given more plausibility each time
they are successfully
reproduced. This is how science is more fact in the
sense of an absolute fact
rather than being fiction. If a scientific theory
apparently explains a
phenomenon, can be reproduced multiple times and it
agrees with other scientific
facts then it is more likely truth than just a
convincing fiction. Convincing
fiction on the other hand is something that is
false at its core, but appears to
be true via various convincing arguments.
Science does not fall under this
category because science is developed using
methods such as the scientific
method that require a scientist to be very
thorough and hence ideas which appear
to be true, but which are in reality
fiction, will be weeded out through
experimentation. There is somewhat of a
gray area between this convincing
fiction and scientific fact because of the
idea of various degrees of scientific
fact as mentioned above, however good
science which follows the scientific
method is differentiated from the
plausible fiction simply from the fact that it
is reproducible and that it
agrees with other widely accepted ideas. Science is
constantly built upon
itself and if one was to classify all science as
convincing fiction then that
would mean that all science is inherently false,
instead the idea of science
as scientific fact allows for the idea that science
is true which allows for
further scientific advancement because one can rely on
previous scientific
ideas and treat them as fact to build new theories which if
also are
scientifically proven will further validate the original theory.
Thus
scientific ideas which are developed through the appropriate means of
scientific
method and which are reproduced by other scientists can be
accepted as fact in
the context of science. This scientific fact is seen as
being inherently true
due to the fact that it is built upon former scientific
ideas that have been
time tested and which approach as close to absolute
truth as possible. Although
a new piece of information can come to light that
totally disproves a theory,
the likelihood of disproving most core theories
(ie. gravity) is relatively slim
due to the fact that ideas that have been
built upon the core theory have also
been scientifically proven and accepted
as scientific fact. Therefore core
science is much more fact than fiction as
it is proven via extensive
experimentation and the newer more controversial
theories are also more fact as
they are built upon the core theories which
are close to being absolute
truth.