On the Success of Scientific Theories

[Alex K]

@everyone:

The end goal here is to explain why it is that science is successful. The topic of truth is more of a thing embedded within the end goal we're trying to achieve.

Then how about the word 'demonstrable' instead of 'true'? That's the bottom line is science, isn't it: the demonstrability of the conclusions of theoretical calculations.

I'm not quite getting it. Can you say again how you would rephrase the question?

[robvalue]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to what you're looking for but I would say the reasons science is successful are:

1) Everyone is working within the same well-defined framework of repeated, observable, testable predictions about reality
2) The best scientific minds in the world will be looking for ways any hypothesis breaks down, both before and after it is accepted as a theory, meaning only the very best survive
3) The system is self correcting so that theories are abandoned or improved on when they are shown to break down
4) No one has the final say, anyone in the world could prove any scientific theory wrong at any time

Basically, science is the best we have because it works, it provides the best models of reality given the available knowledge, technology and expertise. Any part of it that doesn't work gets improved upon.

[watchamadoodle]

I wonder if this stuff would help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%..._inference

Umm, maybe? It depends on what you think this is addressing in the OP. Or were you responding to the notion of approximate truth only?

I'm not quite sure how this fits in.

Say our current scientific knowledge is a set of rules.
Some new experimental results break those rules (with a high probability).
Scientists typically use Occam's razor to make the minimal change to the existing rules to explain the new experimental results.
Occam's razor has always bothered me, because it seems to be poorly defined.
Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference defines Occam's razor and shows why it works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%..._inference

This is only based on a layman's reading of snippets in wikipedia. I was hoping some of you guys have the background in math to tell me if this idea makes sense? It seems like inductive reasoning, statistics, and Occam's razor are the essence of science? (Also I suppose another core idea of science is that the current state of nature predicts the future state of nature within the limitations of QM?)

There is also an updated version of Solomonoff's ideas

Hutter's notion of universal AI describes the optimal strategy of an agent that wants to maximise its future expected reward in some unknown dynamic environment, up to some fixed future horizon. This is the general reinforcement learning problem. Solomonoff/Hutter's only assumption is that the reactions of the environment in response to the agent's actions follow some unknown but computable probability distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Hutter

[Ben Davis]

I'm not quite getting it. Can you say again how you would rephrase the question?

You're right, I do need to rephrase. I also need to get rid of the word 'true':

P1) Our best scientific theories are successful. (note: a theory is successful when the predictions it makes are demonstrable).
P2) The best explanation for the demonstrability of science is that our best scientific theories are accurate.
C) Our best scientific theories are representative of reality.

That seems robust as it's logically consistent, experimentally justifiable and categorically complete (i.e. it includes scientific concepts such as mechanism, observability, repeatability/reproducability, measurement, data etc.)

We'd just need to agree upon definitions of 'demonstrable', 'accurate' & 'reality'. Now THAT's the can of worms

[robvalue]

Good luck defining "reality"!

[Ben Davis]

Good luck defining "reality"!

Well, my definition can be construed from my signature: I am therefore I am - the facts of my existence are the evidence of my existence and data is the only truth. Reality is demonstrable, irrespective of whether or not we have the means to demonstrate it, currently.

[robvalue]

That's just the sort of definition I'd expect from a figment of my chemically induced false reality

[Ben Davis]

You need better acid.

[Norman Humann]

Hi, I'm going to be your pointless comment for the day

[...]you'll get a slightly different, more precise result (not noticeable in practise when dropping balls[...]

Lol
It doesn't matter then which formulas you use during puberty?

[watchamadoodle]

How about we define success as serving a short-term purpose?
Examples of success might be:
- More mammoth meat for your tribe of Neanderthals
- More fuel efficient cars
- ...