science may be "based on" the idea of an "unassailable truth", but only in the sense that it is what science strives to achieve. it can never get there, in the same way that you cannot count to infinity.
even the most well-established scientific theory (such as "gravity") is not an "unassailable truth", however much its effects may seem to be. the whole point of science is that, if something came along tomorrow offering repeatable evidence that didn't fit the theory of gravity, the theory of gravity could be called into question (never mind the likelihood of this happening) and furthermore science tells you it SHOULD be called into question.
science is a framework for testing ideas about reality. it is not reality itself, or even a collection or consensus of observations of reality.
Gravity isn't a bad attempt at finding one, we know it works and have some math and other proofs that can verify it works, but the nuts/bolts why of it all is still a mystery. But they're actively trying to tear it apart to get at those nuts/bolts, which pretty much puts it out of the running as an 'unassailable truth'.
If science gets dogmatic about anything, I think it would be Einstein's principles. When new ideas come up that could potentially invalidate them, the community gets in an uproar and tends to shred the newcomer six ways to Sunday and then proclaim victory for Einstein far more readily and quickly than they take any serious second look at the current model. Einstein's stuff DOES get looked at and tweaked, but it's a far more rare occasion.
I have to completed agree with kber not this. Science is indeed based on the general principle that there are no unassailable truths, just accepted theories based on the best evidence we have to date. The general concept is that
I think the best example of an area of knowledge where unassailable truths are constantly challenged is the subset of science we know and love as Western Medicine. Papers are published, data analyzed, expert opinion constantly argued, and the truth constantly changing. Aspirin 325mg a days used to be an unassailable prescription for heart health 7 years ago. Now anything more than 81mg a day is "the truth" as to what will keep your ticker happy (esp after a heart attack).
The first day of my medical education they told us that our education would never end because by the time we graduated everything we had been taught would be obsolete and different. They flat out told us that the truth today, while easily arguable, will be easily assailed with new and changing data tomorrow. Pharmacy as a profession is
( ... )
Comments 5
science may be "based on" the idea of an "unassailable truth", but only in the sense that it is what science strives to achieve. it can never get there, in the same way that you cannot count to infinity.
even the most well-established scientific theory (such as "gravity") is not an "unassailable truth", however much its effects may seem to be. the whole point of science is that, if something came along tomorrow offering repeatable evidence that didn't fit the theory of gravity, the theory of gravity could be called into question (never mind the likelihood of this happening) and furthermore science tells you it SHOULD be called into question.
science is a framework for testing ideas about reality. it is not reality itself, or even a collection or consensus of observations of reality.
Reply
And yes, that's true. I think what I wanted to imply is that science may have some of these axioms, but avoids then as much as possible.
Reply
If science gets dogmatic about anything, I think it would be Einstein's principles. When new ideas come up that could potentially invalidate them, the community gets in an uproar and tends to shred the newcomer six ways to Sunday and then proclaim victory for Einstein far more readily and quickly than they take any serious second look at the current model. Einstein's stuff DOES get looked at and tweaked, but it's a far more rare occasion.
Reply
I think the best example of an area of knowledge where unassailable truths are constantly challenged is the subset of science we know and love as Western Medicine. Papers are published, data analyzed, expert opinion constantly argued, and the truth constantly changing. Aspirin 325mg a days used to be an unassailable prescription for heart health 7 years ago. Now anything more than 81mg a day is "the truth" as to what will keep your ticker happy (esp after a heart attack).
The first day of my medical education they told us that our education would never end because by the time we graduated everything we had been taught would be obsolete and different. They flat out told us that the truth today, while easily arguable, will be easily assailed with new and changing data tomorrow. Pharmacy as a profession is ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment