Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Scientific Uncertainty
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
When we talk about the correspondence between Buddhist insight and Western neuroscience, I must emphasize that Western scientific interpretations are, by and large, more descriptive than explanatory. And they are always incomplete and uncertain. While we in the West think we are progressing rapidly, and especially recently, I can say with personal conviction that over the course of forty years of teaching several neuroscience disciplines in several universities, I have found that everything I carefully learned and taught has undergone changes, mostly in radically revolutionary ways, even recently. I have felt obliged by these experiences to explain to my students that 50 percent of what I tell them is wrong, and that I can't for the life of me tell them which 50 percent.My take on this isn't that we shouldn't believe in scientific findings and should instead rely solely upon religion for our answers. But instead that we shouldn't hold so tight to current scientific understanding of the universe sense it's apt to change.
Robert Livingston, MD Gentle Bridges p.177
0
Comments
And that goes for ALL science disciplins!
I've been saying the same thing for ages but @vinlyn is all like "No that cant be true Science is soo perfect it never changes".
/Victor
I think it’s important to see the difference between the scientific method and the (currently dominant) theories.
The scientific method does probably change for the better; the instruments develop. There can be new theories about what’s happening when scientists do their thing.
But the scientific method is a relatively solid building.
There will be all kinds of contradicting findings and theories; but that’s all in the game. One day I read drinking coffee is good for me the next day it is bad; I just keep drinking it. That kind of rapid change is on a very detailed level.
On a larger scale there are some dominant theories which have a very long lifespan. In fact I don’t think the basic notion of evolution – for example – will go away. That’s a pretty strong theory. Einstein’s not finished yet. The really strong theories keep getting confirmed and they just get stronger in time. They are not 50% wrong.
Finally compared to religious notions scientific findings are superior, not because they cannot be wrong, but because they can be. They are under fire. Scientists shoot particles and try finding one going faster than light; because it would be great news: Einstein was wrong!
Anyway, the facts don't change, just our understanding of them.
“Das ding ans sich ist ein unbekanntes”. Ultimately we will never really know.
The fact that our understanding of the world is changing is not proof of the failure of the scientific method; it is proof of how it really works. This method of critical investigation really improves our understanding of things.
As I mentioned in another thread, I just had to get off of Lipitor due to side effects. That doesn't mean that drug doesn't do what it is supposed to do. It just means that there are other realities to the drug that sometimes complicate its use. The theory of evolution has itself evolved as we have learned more and as we find additional fossil evidence that fill in those "missing links". But science takes things well beyond the "I've got a hunch" phase of human thinking.
Also I think it has been shown that new ideas in science get a lot of pushback and often scorn when they push against current dogma. If they are right, they will often win out but what about the shame and ridicule that gets placed upon the scientist with the new idea? Its not the skepticism or need for evidence that I have an issue with its the condescention. To me real science isn't about repeating known theories but about exploring new possibilities.
I guess I like that the pushback is there.
I think of new surgeries and medicines, and I am afraid that without the pushback they would sometimes be accepted too quickly. If evolution were wrong, okay, no big problem. But if a new heart surgery technique wrong...permanent disability and even death could result. In my field -- education -- I often see people jump on a bandwagon too quickly as new ideas come along, and sometimes see people not jump on a bandwagon at all, even when a learning concept turns out to be very reliable.