The real question is how accurate do you need the truth too be?
-Blast
This is the age old question of engineering. Scientific "truths" are actually descriptive models that can (for a given circumstance) be relied on to correctly predict the observable results of an experiment. Depending on the nature of the experiment, and the precision required, multiple descriptions/interpretations may provide equally "correct" predictions of the outcome.
Yep, exactly.
For most applications, a rough approximation (i.e. Newtonian physics or basic electrical circuit theory) is good enough. Some applications require more specialized models. Quantum theory seems to be very useful at predicting observable results in high energy physics (and several other areas of scientific interest) but it is a lot less useful than much simpler models in other fields.
- Eric
. People first started realizing in the high-tech boom era of 1802 that Newtonian physics didn't always work.
Nothing we sense is what it truly is. Everything is just models created inside our brains out of the electrical impulses it is receiving. Every sighted (and non-colorblind!) will agree a certain wavelength of light reflected off a stop sign is "red". However, the way my brain visualizes "red" may be completely different than how your brain visualizes "red". We both agree it is red because we have been told that particular wavelength is called red.
There have been some fascinating studies of people who have been given sight after being blind all their life. Even though biologically they now have the ability to see, their brains can not interpret the incoming stimuli in any meaningful manner. For all intents and purposes they are still blind.
Everything is just a model. If you seek the truth of things in the physical world you need to understand this. If you seek the truth of things outside the physical world...then things get complicated!
-Blast
Previous Topic
Index
