![]() I went through all of that to make two important points. That is what is meant by, “I think, therefore I am” (or perhaps more correctly, “I am thinking, therefore I must exist”). This is the concept on which the Matrix movies were based, and it argues that we cannot be certain that we actually exist in our perceived physical form and are not actually just brains in vats living is some form of virtual-reality environment.Īfter considering arguments like these, Descartes realized that the only thing that he could be certain of was that he was thinking, which meant that there must be something doing the thinking, therefore he must exist in some form. Perhaps the most famous of these arguments is the brain in a vat argument. Therefore, I can never be 100% certain that I am not dreaming. Similarly, I have personally had numerous dreams where, in the dream, I contemplated whether or not I was dreaming, and I incorrectly arrived at the conclusion that I was awake. We cannot, for example, ever be 100% certain that we are not hallucinating, or, as Descartes argued, that there is not some evil demon projecting a reality onto our senses. Descartes was concerned with what we could actually be certain of, and he correctly realized that almost everything that we think we know is based on observations, and observations are notoriously faulty and untrustworthy. You have no doubt heard of these arguments via Descartes’ famous statement, “Cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). The most esoteric reason that science can’t prove anything comes from the philosophical arguments about knowledge. #One thing for sure two things for certain movie#The original Matrix movie was actually a brilliant portrayal of the brain in a vat argument.Īre we brains in vats? The philosophical problem of proof Thus, absolute proofs are unattainable in the real world. In other words, if premises 2 and 3 are true, then we can be absolutely certain that the conclusion is correct, but as I’ll explain, we can never actually be absolutely certain about premises 2 and 3, which means that we can never be absolutely certain about the conclusion. You can work out the math using variables and demonstrate that for any triangle the sum of the angles must equal 180 degrees, but as soon as you start plugging actual measurements into the formula, you introduce bias and error. That qualifier is really important though. In other words, if those premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. In both philosophy and math, we would refer to that as a logical proof. Conclusion: Therefore, for triangle ABC, angle C = 45 degrees.Premise 3: For triangle ABC, angle B = 45 degrees.Premise 2: For triangle ABC, angle A = 90 degrees.Premise 1: The sum of the angles of any triangle = 180 degrees.Let me illustrate what I mean with the following example: The uncertainty only enters when you apply the laws of math to observations in the physical universe, which in many ways, is all that science is. Mathematics consists of laws, rules, and theorems which are absolutely true. In contrast, mathematics can provide proofs. For example, we are very, very certain that the earth is orbiting the sun (heliocentrism) but we can never actually be 100% sure that it is. When we say that science can’t prove anything, what we mean is that it cannot show anything to be absolutely, certainly, and unequivocally true. I think that it is important to define “proof” at the outset. As such, it is an extremely useful tool, and it is far better than the alternatives, but it’s certainly not perfect. As I will elaborate on, the best way to think about science is that it tells us what is most likely true given the current evidence. Therefore, I am going to go over some of the reasons why science doesn’t prove anything, then I am going to explain why that is actually a good thing and should not make you question the reliability of science. The reasons for that range from the philosophical to the practical, but if you really want to understand the nature of science, then it is very important that you understand the concept of proof. The reality is that science deals in probabilities, not proofs. Upon hearing that, many people then jump to the opposite extreme and claim that since science can’t prove anything, it is unreliable and should not be trusted. It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make claims like, “science has proved X” or “a fact is something that science has proved.” In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |