RE: On the Success of Scientific Theories
March 25, 2015 at 4:18 am
(This post was last modified: March 25, 2015 at 4:34 am by Alex K.)
The second, the first thing, absolutely true, is not something one can ever sensibly claim about a theory.
To me that's the thing: what does explaining reality still mean if different successive best theories use apparently very different words to explain and describe what's going on.
Like this: I'm writing a chapter right now on the physics of the LHC for laypeople, and I'm talking about the effects of virtual particles on measurements. And I wonder, is it philosophically sound to say: such and such is the outcome of this particles collision, *because* if virtual particles being exchanged by the electrons or whatever. Now, virtual particles are a staple of quantum field theory, and *in that theory* they are the things that make other particles do stuff. But can one say: in Nature, the two electrons act like this and that *because* of virtual particles? I don't know, but it sounds wrong. As if each sentence needed a disclaimer: "I actually mean, that's the explanation when nature is interpreted in terms of this theory here. Might be subject to radical reinterpretation in future theories". And that confounds me a bit bc I don't want to lie to readers, nor aggravate the philosophers of science, or seem philosophically naive.
To me that's the thing: what does explaining reality still mean if different successive best theories use apparently very different words to explain and describe what's going on.
Like this: I'm writing a chapter right now on the physics of the LHC for laypeople, and I'm talking about the effects of virtual particles on measurements. And I wonder, is it philosophically sound to say: such and such is the outcome of this particles collision, *because* if virtual particles being exchanged by the electrons or whatever. Now, virtual particles are a staple of quantum field theory, and *in that theory* they are the things that make other particles do stuff. But can one say: in Nature, the two electrons act like this and that *because* of virtual particles? I don't know, but it sounds wrong. As if each sentence needed a disclaimer: "I actually mean, that's the explanation when nature is interpreted in terms of this theory here. Might be subject to radical reinterpretation in future theories". And that confounds me a bit bc I don't want to lie to readers, nor aggravate the philosophers of science, or seem philosophically naive.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
