Title 3 – KQ 8 : To what extent good explanations are true in Natural Sciences ?

KQ 8 : To what extent good explanations are true in Natural Sciences ?

Disciplines like Astrophysics , Microbiology , Quantum physics/mechanics that are built on micro and quantitative principles elude our sense perception. Additionally philosophers also advocate ‘ Embodied Realism’ – the philosophy that asserts the existence of an unknowable “reality” independent of human beings because our senses limit and distort our perceptions .

This brings forth difficulties in explanations for defining and building similarities. How can we understand abstract concepts by projecting physical reality onto them if we are not even sure of the related physical reality? Lakoff and Johnson also argue that abstract thought would be meaningless without bodily experience. In our complex world information, though abundant, is seldom obvious in its implications and it’s not the accuracy and abundance of information rather how that information is interpreted enables us to have true knowledge. Compared to Sciences , Mathematics involves use of abstraction and logic to define , test and prove concepts , statements and principles that are universal truths – immutable and unchangeable.

The physicists have long encountered ignorance about disorder in the atmosphere, in the turbulent sea , in the fluctuations of wild life populations, in the oscillations of the heart and the brain- the irregular , non linear , erratic and discontinuous side . And where classical science stops , Chaos begins. “ Relativity eliminated the Newtonian illusion of absolute space and time; Quantum theory eliminated the Newtonian dream of a controllable measurement process; Chaos eliminated the Laplacian fantasy of deterministic predictability.

Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian, In his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, argues that “We have to recognize that our understanding of nature is something that grows decade by decade, century by century. But we’re still a long way from understanding the details of much of the universe around us. “

http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/321526/what-is-the-accuracy-of-our-knowledge-about-the-planets-orbits 

https://hbr.org/2003/05/the-high-cost-of-accurate-knowledge

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-slippery-metaphors-of-science-writing/article8541837.ece

http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/success/sl20.htm

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/metaphorical-thinking

http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html

https://blog.udemy.com/extended-metaphor-examples/

blog/2011/12/21/thinking-literally-the-surprising-ways-that-metaphors-shape.html

http://nautil.us/blog/why-natural-selection-became-darwins-fittest-metaphor

https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/metaphor.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/575/F01/lakoff.johnson80.pdf

http://www.economist.com/node/18329654 

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/05/14/why-the-simplest-theory-is-alm/

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110223/full/news.2011.115.html

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/in-defense-of-metaphors-in-science-writing/

 

mindpads.org@gmail.com