The Great Paradox of Science: Why Its Theories Work So Well Without Being True

Description

Singham has authored anti-(Protestant)"Intelligent Design" books. He mentions Duhem, and his title reminds me of Note on the Validity of the Principles of Inertia and Conservation of Energy by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. & Pierre Duhem, where Duhem writes:

"From these considerations two consequences follow: (1) We shall never have the right to affirm categorically of any one of the principles of the mechanical and physical theory, that it is true. (2) We are not allowed to affirm of any one of the principles on which the mechanical and physical theory rests, that it is false, so long as there has been no discovery of phenomena that disagree with the consequences of the deduction of which this principle constitutes one of the premises.

"What I have just said applies particularly to the principle of inertia. The physicist has not the right no say it is certainly true ; but still less has he the right to say it is false, since we have so far met with no phenomenon (if we leave out of consideration the circumstances in which the free will of man intervenes) that compels us to construe a physical theory from which this principle would be excluded.

[De ces observations, deux conséquences:

1° D'aucun des principes de la théorie mécanique et physique, on n'a et on n'aura jamais le droit d'affirmer catégoriquement qu'il est vrai.

2° D'aucun des principes sur lesquels repose la théorie mécanique et physique, il n'est permis d'affirmer qu'il est faux, tant qu'on n'a pas découvert des phénomènes en désaccord avec les conséquences de la déduction dont ce principe est une des prémisses.

Ce que je viens de dire s'applique, en particulier, au principe de l'inertie. Le physicien n'a pas le droit de dire qu'il est certainement vrai; mais encore moins a-t-il le droit de dire qu'il est faux, puisqu'aucun phénomène ne nous a jusqu'ici, (si l'on fait abstraction des circonstances où intervient le libre arbitre de l'homme) contraint de construire une théorie physique d'où ce principe serait exclu.]

Science has revolutionized our lives and continues to show inexorable progress. It may seem obvious that this must be because its theories are steadily getting better and approaching the truth about the world. After all, what could science be progressing toward , if not the truth? But scholarship in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science offers little support for such a sanguine view.

Those opposed to specific conclusions of the scientific community-nonbelievers in vaccinations, climate change, and evolution for example-have been able to use a superficial understanding of the nature of science to sow doubt about the scientific consensus in those areas, leaving the general public confused as to whom to trust, with damaging effects for the health of individuals and the planet.

In The Great Paradox of Science , Mano Singham argues that to better counter such anti-science efforts requires us to understand the nature of science knowledge at a much deeper level and dispel many myths and misconceptions. It is the use of scientific logic, the characteristics of which are elaborated on in the book, that enables the scientific community to arrive at reliable consensus judgments in which the public can retain a high degree of confidence. This scientific logic is applicable not just in science but can be used in all areas of life. Whether they be scientists, policymakers, or members of the general public, readers will not only better understand why science works so well without invoking ideas of truth as a measure, they will also acquire the tools they need to make sound, rational decisions in every area of their lives. Scientists, policymakers, and members of the general public will not only better understand why science works, they will also acquire the tools they need to make sound, rational decisions in all areas of their lives.

**