One would not just know from reason or introspection alone that the male climax during heterosexual intercourse could initiate pregnancy, that outer space does not have the same gravitational phenomena of Earth's surface, that material objects seemingly reduce to atoms at much smaller scales (and atoms to subatomic particles and some of these to still other units), that aluminum is a superconductor for electricity, that sea snakes must surface for air while eels have gills, that a banana will ripen faster in a bag, that human breathing release carbon dioxide, and so on. These are neither necessarily true like logical axioms (such as that truth exists, which would still have to be true if it is false because then it would be true that nothing is true) nor self-evident in the way that one's own conscious existence is, something that is not even epistemologically true of one's own body.
One would have to directly observe various correlations or hear of them to, in many cases, have a reason to even think of these things to begin with, things which are logically possible since they do not contradict axioms and yet are neither true by default in themselves nor verifiable beyond the veil of subjective perception. Some events or correlations, like various quantum activities that include the "orbit" [1] of an electron, might not be directly experienced, either because they would not be macroscopic to begin with, meaning no one could see them without hypothetical supernatural or technological aid, or because, in spite of being macroscopic, they are not occurring in front of a specific observer. For an example of the latter, I do not witness hydrothermal vents in the bathypelagic or abyssopelagic zones of the ocean because I live on the surface and do not indirectly monitor such depths. Whether by cumulative observational evidence or because of mere hearsay, certain scientific ideas/frameworks become dominant paradigms, broad or somewhat foundational ideologies that fit with all of most of the available perceptions.
Yet many people confuse hearing that something is scientifically true, whether it is a paradigm or something that falls within a paradigm, with it being proven to be true. This is only epistemological hearsay, as with any claim of particular events in human civilization throughout history, and one can recognize testimony or other sensory-related evidences where they are genuinely relevant as fallible probabilistic factors without believing the irrationalistic fallacies of science, much less scientific hearsay, providing absolute certainty that a paradigm is true. Moreover, most people are hypocrites regarding this anyway. Do they believe that Earth is only spherical because people agree, or because there is some arbitrary level of consensus? It is spherical if it is spherical, not because of reports or beliefs or preference. They might say this when pressed, but they would likely never think about such admittedly trivial matters (trivial on their own) without social prompting anyway. This part is only problematic if someone misunderstands things, thinking that hearsay is provable or that the most foundational/important truths are not true and accessible independent of such experiences (like axioms, one's own mental states, the existence of an uncaused cause, and so on).
For all the glorification of scientific hearsay and consensus today, the proponents of these idiotic epistemological positions likely do not consistently believe their own tenets. If they truly went with popularity or appeals to authority rather than realizing that all scientific phenomena are humanly unverifiable no matter how much evidence they have, they would actually be the ones to oppose more evidentially robust scientific paradigms as they become proposed. The chronological precursor to germ theory, miasma theory, entails that foul air emanating from carrion is what causes various illnesses. If they were born when this was standard belief, since they believe things are scientifically true (as opposed to seemingly and perhaps true) based upon the ideological climate of the day, they would have opposed miasma theory's decline of popularity. Small particles from rotting flesh were supposed to be carried into people's bodies by respiration, at which point they would become sick. In the late 1800s, this paradigm was replaced as a dominant epidemiological framework by germ theory with its emphasis on pathogens and microorgamisms, which might eventually itself be set aside as a popular scientific commitment in favor of some newly conceived conceptual system that somehow better fits a wider range of empirical evidence (which is always probabilistic and potentially illusory anyway for non-omniscient beings).
The very nature of the scientific method, though scientific laws could remain constant in spite of which paradigm is embraced at a particular time or place, is that it cannot prove anything beyond revealing evidential probabilities. For a truth about science much more abstract than almost anyone is willing to discover or accept, there is the fact that you can never know just from noticing that event B follows event A--such as that consuming caffeine stimulates the nervous system and can enable greater concentration or that plugging in a computer charger restores its battery life--if one event caused another. All the senses access are perceived correlations. It does not logically follow from one event appearing in sequence with another, not even every time one tries repeat the observation, that the prior event is the causal reason why the subsequent event happened. This is even if the correlation occurred as one perceived it and thus there is no disparity between mental experiences and the activities of the real external world of matter. No paradigm, from germ theory to quantum mechanics to evolution, can be verified as long as human limitations persist, in part because of the inability to empirically distinguish true causation from hyper-consistent correlation.
In 100 or 50 or even six years or less, there might be novel dominant paradigms because of newly discovered correlations, which does not mean that the natural laws and events were not already there long before, that we do not have direct sensory or indirect technological means to observe. Fools of any era, however, might believe scientific phenomena are known in themselves instead of on the level of subjective perceptions and logical deduction from unverifiable premises. Fools might believe that correlation proves causation or that hearsay and consensus mean something is scientifically true (while only selectively holding to this). Fools might think a scientific paradigm of their sliver of recorded history could not possibly be exchanged whether based upon sensory evidence or otherwise. Logic alone refutes their philosophy of science, but even lesser yet still relevant historical and scientific developments conflict with this.
No comments:
Post a Comment