Re:The Limits of Science
by ASalazarMX on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @05:31PM
(#21339221)
This is a classic philosopher vs. pragmatic discussion.
Zeno: "How can movement exist? A flying arrow, at any point in its trajectory, is static, but at the next moment, it-"
Pragmatic: "Hey, I shot ten arrows. They took 4 seconds average to reach the target at 200 m, so they move at 50 m/s, therefore movement does exist. Can we eat something? I'm hungry."
Which is why scientists, like everyone else, uses statistical reasoning.
> In general, if you control for everything, you can't say anything about the real world outside of those precise lab controlled conditions.
This is one of those statements which is only true if you ignore all the times it's false. It's like Zeno's Paradox: If this really troubles you, it's a sign your model's incomplete, not that there's something irreconcilably wrong with the universe. Some of what you're getting at can be fixed with better experimental design, but the rest can only be fixed by, as I said, statistical reasoning, which is universally used in practice.
It's possible to be somewhat uncertain. Some people don't get that, or refuse to acknowledge it so they can sow FUD.