Re:Why Science Needs Metaphysics
by petewailes on Friday October 02, 2015 @11:00AM
(#10318962)
Because those differences are a reflection in differences of understanding, not of how the underlying system being studied actually works. Whether or not you say that the sky being blue is because of light and the composition of the atmosphere and the current weather, or because the Sky God made it that way has nothing to do with the actual reason why. It's solely a reflection of your explanation. It is how it is for a reason, and that reason doesn't change because your explanation does.
What's so wrong about this? It seems so obvious it should be uncontroversial. The first several dozen scientific hypotheses to explain any given phenomenon are all bound to be very very wrong. Even the big-t Theories have to be adjusted many many times before and after they start to get referred to as such.
We have no idea what's true until long after the fact. Many respected scientists of the early 1900s believed in and contributed to the science of eugenics. Scientists we still respect today for their contributions to other fields.
> Which is obviously false, like saying science done by people who speak different languages would express itself differently.
Again, why the scornful dismissal? The scientific establishment of the West differs in many ways from the establishment in the East. Not just language, but culture also produces differences. We managed to collaborate with the Soviets to do space missions, but it took an awful lot of work to do it. Medicine can have some very striking differences.