The truths of science are not truths, they are humble explanatory models that can be contested

The truths of science are not truths, they are humble explanatory models that can be contested

Where can we find more truths, or at least better quality truths? In the novels? In art? In your own or other people’s feelings? In our conversations with others? Is science? In religion?

Without a doubt it is an interesting debate because concepts are very difficult to define . For example, the real "truth".

What is the truth?

In everyday speech it is so easy to make yourself understood , and yet in more academically strict settings it is a word devoid of meaning in general terms because it has different meanings.

There is the legal truth, the subjective sensible truth, the objective truth of a measuring device, etc. But none of them alludes to Truth, in capital letters.

Milky Way 1023340 640

Because the only way to know the Truth is to know everything about everything, reach the Omega Point, have a meta-knowledge of our own reality (which forces us to leave the universe or reality and contemplate it without being part of it … because mere contemplation is an interaction that alters the truth).

That is why in science I even prefer to use the word "model" : an explanatory model has been found that fits with other explanatory models and for which we have indexed the concatenation of evidence that has led us to this. And, in addition, it is reproducible by anyone.

And that model will remain in force until someone finds an error in it and / or finds a more precise explanatory model. That is why the Newtonian model is true, and the Einsteinian model is also true … but which model is better? Well, we know that the Einsteinian is more complete, but also that the Newtonian is still useful for macroscopic objects.

Books 1655783 1280

Truths in fiction

That said, it can be understood that in the field of literature or fiction in general a truth can be found. The one that allows you to penetrate the musings of a person, empathize with him, understand that the world is a much more complex place than you thought, that your prejudices were just that, prejudices, that sometimes there are beautiful things that had happened to you unnoticed, and a long etcetera.

Perhaps when I affirm that I trust the scientific truth more, I am simply alluding at an epistemological level, for two reasons.

The first, because science addresses subjects infinitely simpler and more accessible than the truths of any other field (there are even soft sciences that address such intricate truths that they are not even considered science by many, such as psychology or sociology). Science faces problems that can easily be reduced to formulas . They are in themselves reducible to univocal, universal languages. They are findings that we could perfectly share with an intelligent extraterrestrial civilization, because they are more obvious to the senses, there is little room for interpretation.

The second, because we can get to know why we know what we know, how we got there, clearly and evidently for anyone who undergoes basic training. On the contrary, Marxist theory or economic liberalism is based on premises that cannot be verified , in leaps of faith, more in ideologies than in evidence. Scientific theories, on the other hand, exclude these factors as much as they are capable of.

Thus, a scientific truth is more robust because, although extremely complex, its explanations are actually simplified models of reality that are useful at the operational, pragmatic level. That is why I can trust them more easily . That is why they seem superior or more valid to me. Because they are not bombastic, rhetorical, pretty, intuitive, beautiful … they are usually very simple, humble, self-convinced ideas that can be substituted at any time, counterintuitive and even ugly, horrible. This is not always the case, but the fact that it is so is already very significant.

The deepest truths of science are not even intelligible by our brain, but must be translated into formulas or languages ​​that only allow a certain practical approach by the expert (and sometimes not even that), because they are truths that cannot even be imagined, be assumed, therefore, exceeding the cognitive limits of our brain … such as trying to assimilate the total number of stars in the universe or the number of atoms that constitute everything. Even the very thought that right now allows me to write these words.