I disagree that it follows. Science does enable us to understand reality. I am saying that for the current specific case of quantum mechanics, we are still lacking some information.
Science has never claimed to have full knowledge of everything, in fact, it claims it doesn't. This doesn't make it any lesser. In fact, understanding what you know and what you don't is far more important than just having some complete picture of knowledge (which is most definite wrong).
Science has had the most success of any system at understanding reality. This is because of the nature of the assumptions/etc (the culture or bias if you will) that it is based on.
Understanding when you are wrong, or when something is outside of the realm of questions you can answer, is as important as answering questions.
Science works with a huge other system of observations/etc that is understood in a simple mathematical framework. And I can use the theories developed to explain and predict one phenomena, and use them to predict some totally different phenomena... and I will be right.
Take the standard model for instance (to name a theory that is wrong, but very good where it is relevant). It was developed to explain partons, and what we were observing about nucleon behavior. However, it allowed the prediction of top quarks and other such things... which had nothing to do with nucleon behavior explocity. They weren't included due to predicting the behavior of nucleons, rather, when the mathetical theory of nucleon behavior was developed they became a natural conclusion.
The same is true of the Higgs particle, which is why people are so interested in finding it. If they don't, then something very strange is going on.
Jon Miller
Science has never claimed to have full knowledge of everything, in fact, it claims it doesn't. This doesn't make it any lesser. In fact, understanding what you know and what you don't is far more important than just having some complete picture of knowledge (which is most definite wrong).
Science has had the most success of any system at understanding reality. This is because of the nature of the assumptions/etc (the culture or bias if you will) that it is based on.
Understanding when you are wrong, or when something is outside of the realm of questions you can answer, is as important as answering questions.
Science works with a huge other system of observations/etc that is understood in a simple mathematical framework. And I can use the theories developed to explain and predict one phenomena, and use them to predict some totally different phenomena... and I will be right.
Take the standard model for instance (to name a theory that is wrong, but very good where it is relevant). It was developed to explain partons, and what we were observing about nucleon behavior. However, it allowed the prediction of top quarks and other such things... which had nothing to do with nucleon behavior explocity. They weren't included due to predicting the behavior of nucleons, rather, when the mathetical theory of nucleon behavior was developed they became a natural conclusion.
The same is true of the Higgs particle, which is why people are so interested in finding it. If they don't, then something very strange is going on.
Jon Miller
Comment