One day I came across something called ‘Null Physics’. I didn’t say that the following content is in any way related to ‘Null Physics’.
If a person creates a huge theory which unfortunately is not science, he/she cannot help it by defining a new science or by seeking supports from eastern philosophy before we agree with him/her and re-examine all the old science in the new way. The current cyclic experiment-induction-hypothesis-deduction-experiment rote of modern science is not the convention or interest exclusively of the west. This is not any nation’s own interest, but is for the sake of the reliability of knowledge. We (all human beings) now agree that knowledge is the most reliable it can be if it is the product of such cycle. If anytime we doubt about the reliability, a modification of the cycle or a new better procedure for more reliable knowledge is then expected, no matter from the east or the west. Currently we are well satisfied with this version of cycle. That’s why people don’t rely on TCM or ‘alternative treatments’.
The cycle must start with experiment. We don’t think about anything if we are blind and deaf and anything that’s paralytic. We think because we observe things. So thought starts only from observation, or experiment if human designed procedure is involved. We don’t start thinking from anything that’s not observed or practiced, for example, God, Zen, or anything alike. I mean we don’t do so as science. So if anyone do so it is not science. It does not prevent them to be philosophy or religion, though.
Even though we have a lot of the observed, knowledge should be a full name of judge if it is useful. In other words, the subject of the knowledge should be a collective noun, eg. ‘women’ rather than ‘my aunt, Jane’. But we never observe ‘women’. We only observe cases of women. So to bridge between experiments (flirting with many women) and useful knowledge (that says ‘All women are such an such’), we need different extent of induction. Here we have to first believe one thing, that the world works in logic, and to admit another, that induction is always illogical.
So the product of induction is not truth but what we called temporarily hypothesis which must subjected to further experiments. We don’t experiment on the hypothesis alone but also its deductions which are its logical products whose errors therefore immediately disprove the original hypothesis while whose correctness do not necessarily prove the original hypothesis. We are familiar with all these rules.
Therefore we know that we can never get the most reliable form of knowledge – truth. The product of the above mentioned procedure is still the most reliable ever possible not because we induce things from experiment in a safe way, but because we never stop testing what’s induced and always ready to disprove them. We do, however, care very much in the process of induction to maximize the possibility that the induction is widely applied. Bad inducing technique often produces products that are easily disproved. However, blaming the flaws in the inducing process of science does not harm the scientific conclusion if the latter is still standing against all experimental results.
Also, for different people to experiment on the one same argument, we need terms which is logically defined in an existing context so that when one argues about ‘women’ for example, all people should know what he/she is actually talking about, deduce correctly from that argument, and prevent experimenting on the wrong subject (men). If the terms in an argument is neither defined at all nor defined in an existing context the argument is neither understandable nor practical.
Maybe the only thing that is a belief in science is that the world works in logic. We define terms logically, induce logically, hypothesize logically, deduce logically, and design experiment logically. I cannot find any other reasons for this except that we believe the world works in logic. Anyone who doesn’t believe in this doesn’t believe in science, either, and is therefore impossible to ‘do’ any science.
For self-evaluation, Baez Crackpot Index is also very recommendable.
I must, and will, translate this index into Chinese. Thank you!
Dear Weixiang,
you wrote:“Maybe the only thing that is a belief in science is that the world works in logic. We define terms logically, induce logically, hypothesize logically, deduce logically, and design experiment logically. I cannot find any other reasons for this except that we believe the world works in logic. Anyone who doesn’t believe in this doesn’t believe in science, either, and is therefore impossible to ‘do’ any science.”
This statement implies that science=science, which is not the case. Your view may apply to phycics which I humble as well have doubts about. It does to my knowledge not apply to human sciences, social sciences in particular.
I am more or less in agreement with the procedures in the place you give for logic within it.
Unfortunately you gave an example about “women” and your aunt. There has been successful research about women, children and other subpopulations that are notorious for inconsistencies, unpredictabilities and my main example would be the “patient”.
Compliance has something of a mystery, at least it is well known to resist approaches to achieve a better compliance from patients.
This maybe due to irrationality, which again may be part of the human nature.
So how do you make your logical premises fit for a field of research that has to deal with human nature including irrationality?
Yours friendly
Hans
Hans,
In fact I agree with you, which means what I expressed in the post is neither complete nor completely right. The “women-and-my-aunt” example is arbitrary, indeed, but it is for explaining the relationship of a collective word and its cases.
But this still stimulate what you asked about, the interesting ‘interfacial’ area, human science in which the objects of the research belong to the same collective word as the researchers – human. There are a couple of field like psychology, but as I know these science is still facing the embarrassment its experiment design. Maybe the word ‘science’ can be used more widely to include all fields in which prudence and objectivity are appreciated but not limited to those which can fully practice the strictest reasoning cycle as natural sciences. However, if the pursue of this reasoning cycle is actually the pursue of the reliability of knowledge, as I have mentioned in my post, can’t we just say that our knowledge about human is not as reliable as that about nature, which, although we’ve tried our best, is true?
Nicely put Andrew…glad my original post about the Null Physics guys was so inspirational. I have a Cracked Pot as the logo for the Controversial Conjectures section on my site just for such posts ;-)