Saturday, April 13, 2019

The humility embedded in scientific Thinking


Something just occurred to me while watching this video:
The video really shows two different forms of thinking. at the beginning of the video, they an example of what some might call "mystical thinking": when magnets were first discovered, they were thought to have healing properties on the human body, because of the unusual effect they had on metals. I can really understand how someone looking at this magical object for the first time would attribute supernatural powers beyond what it demonstrates.
The other type of thinking was implied toward the end of the video, when nuclear power was discussed, and was explained using Einstein's formula E=Mc^2
And watching that part, it occurred to me, how weird it would seem to actually take the mass of something, and multiply it by this seemingly random number represented by c (the speed of light), to then get a third number that is suppose to predict (and with accuracy!) a physical, measurable effect.
And then it really hit me that a scientific formula represents a new kind of thinking; one that trusts a long, carefully considered chain of induction, and puts the trust in that induction, no matter how random the resulting numbers might otherwise seem. In a way, it is giving up control to the unknown parts of reality, in the hopes that the attempt at objectivity up until that point will prove justified.
The scientist does not truly know if the theory is correct until the very last minute when their formula is tested against factual results. But a long commitment to nothing but the truth, devoid of any self-serving, ego-indulging assumptions is trusted as the sole guide to knowledge.
And I am not trying to glorify Objectivism with this post. For me, it is more about the wonder of being able to mentally function this way. To be helpless and give up control by offering a theory and a formula as a QUESTION, rather than a certain statement. With no assumption, and absolute humble commitment to the truth. It's only after a theory is proven that it can be thought of as knowledge, in contrast to the leap of logic that (understandably) declares: "A magnet has healing properties! Because it works like magic!"
But more deeply, I think ultimately both these forms of thinking likely have more in common than we think, and the later is probably just a more advanced and refined than the former, but still needs it to exist. First guesses leap into a vast unknown context, and maybe we need this leap in order to later step in with more cautiousness to refine our observations.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Do not post links which are not relevant to the subject. Such links will be deleted.

Is qualia the same among different people?

  It is said that we can't know for certain if one person's experience is the same as another's. For example, just because two p...