1.3 Conceptual Models and Natural Sciences
5
by these same instruments. Part of the effort of science involves the refinement of
measurement and the expansion of the realms over which observation is possible.
Often, the well-tested and accepted statements in a natural theory are designated
as physical laws, but the phrase gives a false impression that the propositions of
the theory cannot be violated. Inversely, a common misconception is that a physical
theory is “just a theory,” implying that no tests have been made. Statements within
a theory should not be assumed absolute or even independent of the human mind.
None of our instruments which measure a physical quantity (as opposed to pure
numbers) can have infinite precision or make determinations over all space or all
time. Therefore, it does not make sense to claim that a scientific theory giving
relationships between such physical quantities describes an absolute truth. Only
records of discrete integers can be considered absolute.
Note that the language of a theory contains preconceived notions of what is to
be taken as primitive and fundamental. Alternatives always exist. 1 We know that
a logical theory can be mathematically transformed into an equivalent one with a
completely different language but identical predictions. So we should recognize that
when we talk about certain ‘concepts’, such as particles or electric fields, we are not
talking about nature herself, but rather about elements of our models of nature.
All of our conceptual models must be considered tentative. They catch observations no better than a fisherman’s net catches objects in the ocean. Some will
get away. Our physical laws about observables with physical dimensions are never
absolute. They are known to hold only in the realm where they have been tested,
and there only to within a certain precision.
The process which has been utilized that favors the development of a science is
the scientific method. The essence of this process is observation, model construction, and the design of a careful set of tests to check if there is a degree of agreement
of the model’s prediction with measurements. Observations or experiments must be
sufficiently precise and reproducible to make the tests definitive and convincing. We
define ‘precision’ by the smallness of the variability of a measurement after repeated
measurements, while ‘accuracy’ is determined by how close a measurement comes
to a prediction.
In the process of checking a hypothesis or world view, Nature may reveal yet
another mystery to be solved. Moreover, complex models often show their own
limits, at the boundaries of their realm. This is true for some of our best theories:
Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s and Dirac’s.
The scientific method has had remarkable success in the last few centuries for
several reasons, not least among these are: A climate of independent thinking; rapid
distribution of the news of a new discovery and of ideas; the use of impartial testing
1 It is possible to transform Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism to an ‘action-at-a-distance’
theory, with no electric or magnetic fields. The new formulation is completely equivalent to
Maxwell’s theory in its predictions. It is also possible to make a ‘non-local’ quantum theory without
any reference to wave functions, completely equivalent to conventional quantum theory.
5
by these same instruments. Part of the effort of science involves the refinement of
measurement and the expansion of the realms over which observation is possible.
Often, the well-tested and accepted statements in a natural theory are designated
as physical laws, but the phrase gives a false impression that the propositions of
the theory cannot be violated. Inversely, a common misconception is that a physical
theory is “just a theory,” implying that no tests have been made. Statements within
a theory should not be assumed absolute or even independent of the human mind.
None of our instruments which measure a physical quantity (as opposed to pure
numbers) can have infinite precision or make determinations over all space or all
time. Therefore, it does not make sense to claim that a scientific theory giving
relationships between such physical quantities describes an absolute truth. Only
records of discrete integers can be considered absolute.
Note that the language of a theory contains preconceived notions of what is to
be taken as primitive and fundamental. Alternatives always exist. 1 We know that
a logical theory can be mathematically transformed into an equivalent one with a
completely different language but identical predictions. So we should recognize that
when we talk about certain ‘concepts’, such as particles or electric fields, we are not
talking about nature herself, but rather about elements of our models of nature.
All of our conceptual models must be considered tentative. They catch observations no better than a fisherman’s net catches objects in the ocean. Some will
get away. Our physical laws about observables with physical dimensions are never
absolute. They are known to hold only in the realm where they have been tested,
and there only to within a certain precision.
The process which has been utilized that favors the development of a science is
the scientific method. The essence of this process is observation, model construction, and the design of a careful set of tests to check if there is a degree of agreement
of the model’s prediction with measurements. Observations or experiments must be
sufficiently precise and reproducible to make the tests definitive and convincing. We
define ‘precision’ by the smallness of the variability of a measurement after repeated
measurements, while ‘accuracy’ is determined by how close a measurement comes
to a prediction.
In the process of checking a hypothesis or world view, Nature may reveal yet
another mystery to be solved. Moreover, complex models often show their own
limits, at the boundaries of their realm. This is true for some of our best theories:
Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s and Dirac’s.
The scientific method has had remarkable success in the last few centuries for
several reasons, not least among these are: A climate of independent thinking; rapid
distribution of the news of a new discovery and of ideas; the use of impartial testing
1 It is possible to transform Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism to an ‘action-at-a-distance’
theory, with no electric or magnetic fields. The new formulation is completely equivalent to
Maxwell’s theory in its predictions. It is also possible to make a ‘non-local’ quantum theory without
any reference to wave functions, completely equivalent to conventional quantum theory.