01-08-2010, 02:41 AM
Hi,
From my perspective, I think the terminology change has a bit to do with the reduction of hubris in the scientific community and a lot to do with an alteration of viewpoint. When scientists felt nature followed some knowable laws, they used terms like 'laws of nature'. Over the years, these 'laws' turned out to be incomplete or incorrect. Scientists began to understand that there is a great difference between 'the truth' and 'the whole truth'. And so, from a modesty forced on them by reality, the terminology became less bombastic, with 'equations' or 'theories' replacing 'laws'.
Over the same period, it became questionable if the hypotheses used to describe natural phenomena actually did so at all. It is expressed well as "The map is not he terrain". The question is whether we scientists are really explaining nature or simply generating models that mimic portions of nature. More and more of us are coming to think that the latter is true, that the more we know, the more we'll find we need to know. Ultimately, nature may never be completely understandable by the human mind.
So, yeah, unlike the pope, we scientists are giving up our claims for infallibility. But, on the average, we've still done a hell of a lot better explaining nature over four centuries of science than all the priests, shaman, and witch doctors have done over thirty millenia.
--Pete
Quote:Just because scientist use the word 'theory', is no reason to assume there is no certainty. They do that all the time, out of habit, so they don't look so bad if they happen to be wrong.Actually, you've hit on a little bit of truth here. I'd posted a link to what a scientific theory is and, just for you, I'll repost it here.
From my perspective, I think the terminology change has a bit to do with the reduction of hubris in the scientific community and a lot to do with an alteration of viewpoint. When scientists felt nature followed some knowable laws, they used terms like 'laws of nature'. Over the years, these 'laws' turned out to be incomplete or incorrect. Scientists began to understand that there is a great difference between 'the truth' and 'the whole truth'. And so, from a modesty forced on them by reality, the terminology became less bombastic, with 'equations' or 'theories' replacing 'laws'.
Over the same period, it became questionable if the hypotheses used to describe natural phenomena actually did so at all. It is expressed well as "The map is not he terrain". The question is whether we scientists are really explaining nature or simply generating models that mimic portions of nature. More and more of us are coming to think that the latter is true, that the more we know, the more we'll find we need to know. Ultimately, nature may never be completely understandable by the human mind.
So, yeah, unlike the pope, we scientists are giving up our claims for infallibility. But, on the average, we've still done a hell of a lot better explaining nature over four centuries of science than all the priests, shaman, and witch doctors have done over thirty millenia.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?