1.2 Conceptual Models of Nature
3
understanding of what we see, while generating insights into what might be not yet
seen.
A theory which is capable of not only matching known facts, but contains new
predictions, achieves a special stature when those predictions are later verified.
The probability of making a correct detailed numerical prediction matching a
measurement, by chance or by an incorrect theory, is usually quite small. There
are many instances in the development of our understanding of nature when a new
theory has made significant predictions later found true. In physics, perhaps the
most famous of these are Maxwell’s prediction (1864) of radio waves, Einstein’s
prediction (1905) of the energy equivalence of mass, and Dirac’s prediction (1931)
of antimatter. In biology, Darwin (1859) predicted how species evolve under
selective environmental pressure, and Mendel’s rules (1865) described the behavior
of inherited units of trait later discovered to be genes on our DNA. In chemistry,
Dalton’s law (1803) of multiple proportions in chemical reactions preceded the
demonstration that atoms exist, and Mendeleev predicted (1871) the properties of as
yet undiscovered elements from the pattern of periodic behavior of known elements.
Predictions arising from good theories often have profound influence on the
development of technology, including medical applications.
Theories successfully describing observations give us the ability to think clearly
about the possible as well as the improbable.
In contrast to the search for a logical basis for our observations, there has also
been a tendency in the mind of a multitude of humans to submit to the solace
and comfort of supernatural explanations, often promulgated by so-called higher
authorities in societies. In many cases, those higher authorities were motivated by
a desire to maintain their status rather than to seek the truth. Throughout history,
individuals have said we should give up an exploration at the frontiers of knowledge,
with declarations equivalent to “God made it that way.” This capitulation seems to
go against our natural curiosity. But the desire for a childlike feeling of security
based on an inscrutable and benevolent higher intelligence in the universe can be
stronger. As genuine as this feeling is, keeping an open mind willing to explore has
led our species to see deeper and deeper logical underpinnings to natural events.
With such a frame of mind and the resulting knowledge, we have the ability to
judge when a story is based on false or unverifiable notions. Science organizes
our description of nature’s logic. The success of science in finding answers about
nature has expanded the domain of the understandable. There is no evidence that the
domain of the knowable has limits.
Logically, conceptual models contain ‘primitive elements’ whose nature is
defined only by relationships with other elements. So it is in both mathematics and
science. Ultimately, there will be, in each conceptual model of nature, ideas which
have no antecedent, such as space and time in Newtonian theory. These ideas take
their significance from their connection to other ideas. In newer formulations, it
may be possible to find deeper significance to a set of ideas, or to give alternate
interpretations to observations. These can be useful in stimulating new ideas.
Selecting between inequivalent models may require more precise measurements,
or a fuller exploration of the model’s realm. If there are no other compelling reasons
3
understanding of what we see, while generating insights into what might be not yet
seen.
A theory which is capable of not only matching known facts, but contains new
predictions, achieves a special stature when those predictions are later verified.
The probability of making a correct detailed numerical prediction matching a
measurement, by chance or by an incorrect theory, is usually quite small. There
are many instances in the development of our understanding of nature when a new
theory has made significant predictions later found true. In physics, perhaps the
most famous of these are Maxwell’s prediction (1864) of radio waves, Einstein’s
prediction (1905) of the energy equivalence of mass, and Dirac’s prediction (1931)
of antimatter. In biology, Darwin (1859) predicted how species evolve under
selective environmental pressure, and Mendel’s rules (1865) described the behavior
of inherited units of trait later discovered to be genes on our DNA. In chemistry,
Dalton’s law (1803) of multiple proportions in chemical reactions preceded the
demonstration that atoms exist, and Mendeleev predicted (1871) the properties of as
yet undiscovered elements from the pattern of periodic behavior of known elements.
Predictions arising from good theories often have profound influence on the
development of technology, including medical applications.
Theories successfully describing observations give us the ability to think clearly
about the possible as well as the improbable.
In contrast to the search for a logical basis for our observations, there has also
been a tendency in the mind of a multitude of humans to submit to the solace
and comfort of supernatural explanations, often promulgated by so-called higher
authorities in societies. In many cases, those higher authorities were motivated by
a desire to maintain their status rather than to seek the truth. Throughout history,
individuals have said we should give up an exploration at the frontiers of knowledge,
with declarations equivalent to “God made it that way.” This capitulation seems to
go against our natural curiosity. But the desire for a childlike feeling of security
based on an inscrutable and benevolent higher intelligence in the universe can be
stronger. As genuine as this feeling is, keeping an open mind willing to explore has
led our species to see deeper and deeper logical underpinnings to natural events.
With such a frame of mind and the resulting knowledge, we have the ability to
judge when a story is based on false or unverifiable notions. Science organizes
our description of nature’s logic. The success of science in finding answers about
nature has expanded the domain of the understandable. There is no evidence that the
domain of the knowable has limits.
Logically, conceptual models contain ‘primitive elements’ whose nature is
defined only by relationships with other elements. So it is in both mathematics and
science. Ultimately, there will be, in each conceptual model of nature, ideas which
have no antecedent, such as space and time in Newtonian theory. These ideas take
their significance from their connection to other ideas. In newer formulations, it
may be possible to find deeper significance to a set of ideas, or to give alternate
interpretations to observations. These can be useful in stimulating new ideas.
Selecting between inequivalent models may require more precise measurements,
or a fuller exploration of the model’s realm. If there are no other compelling reasons