Don't hide behind science, Sandy!

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Whymme at 2001-12-16 09:37:45
Converted from Phorums BB System

Sandy wrote:
>>Myself, I used to infuriate people the same way. I'm afflicted with "Certainty" (2 pt disadv). I am totally certain my way is correct-- until another way that is better than offered, then I have no problem switching. In my field, that's the scientific process (keep a theory 'til disproved).

Errm, this is not exactly true. There is a difference between keeping a theory until it is disproved (the scientific process) and keeping a theory until a better one is formulated (Sandy's process).

Scientists are able to grasp conflicting theories, as long as neither of them is disproved and both seem roughly equally likely. Sandy says that he is totally certain that his way is correct - if he would follow the scientific principles, he would keep testing his way to find out whether it is correct.

Nitpicking maybe, but using exact definitions is also one of the marks of science :-)

Whymme

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by blackguard at 2001-12-17 09:40:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

Yes, but the subtleties of this argument perhaps step beyond the wording of a simple article. Had Sandy written a longer piece, perhaps he would have gone into more detail on this issue in order to clarify and you wouldn't have a nit to pick.

On another point, in reading about the rhetoric involved in the scientific process, I have come to realize that which theory gains prominence in the academic debate surrounding an issue often has less to do with its applicability but rather more to do with how novel it is, how popular it is, how much money is behind it, or how charismatic/entrenched the scientists working on it are. In other words, while the scientific method is pretty well cut and dried, the application of the method in the real world rarely (if ever) approaches the ideal as it is presented on paper.

Finally, upon examining scientific progress over the centuries, it becomes very easy to see that science is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Each new theory works to explain seeming inconsistancies with existing theories and eventually supplants them when the new theories are found to be more applicable - which someone might describe in an article as 'better' if he or she were writing colloquially. Yes, you are correct that if one takes a snapshot of the scientific process, two seemingly mutually exclusive theories might be held at one time, but more at a societal level (two competing factions within the scientific community) rather than on a personal level. The only exception to this that I can think of off the top of my head would be Newtonian physics and Quantum physics where the two theories mutually exclude each other but where each find great applicability within certain defined spheres. This notwithstanding, scientists are working upon a Unifying Theory that would supersede both theories and bridge the seeming inconsistancies. Would such a theory be 'better' than either of thge two previous theories? I think so.

In other words, if one steps back far enough to see theories evolve over time, it is a rare occasion when two competing theories are held at the same time - someone is always looking to discover a way to find a better theory that explains a wider range of observed behaviour.