I have a tree in my back yard. I planted it maybe 15 years ago as a seedling at around 12 inches high. It is now 20 feet in height.
There is a biological theory of how trees grow. Let's refer to it as "The Biological Theory of Trees", or BToT for short.
BTOT happens to be quite useful. Much can be predicted about tree growth. Planters, orchardists, etc, can use BTOT to guide them in ways to control tree growth so as to manage fruit picking and other kinds of harvesting.
From what I have seen, BTOT explains my tree quite well. The tree grows pretty much as BTOT suggests. I use my knowledge of BTOT when pruning, and that works well too.
If I am completely honest, I have to admit that BTOT could be wrong. I have never actually seen the tree grow. If have at various times noticed that it was bigger than it had previously been. But any actual growth happens at too slow a speed for observation.
So maybe trees don't grow at all. Maybe every now and then, at a time when nobody is watching, the tree simply poofs out of existence, and a new slightly larger tree poofs into existence to replace it. Let's refer to that as the Theory of Intelligent Tree Growth, or TITG.
Let's suppose that TITG turns out to be true, and BTOT turns out to be false. Maybe I had a convincing experience, including a supernatural revelation, where I learned of the truth of TITG.
What should I then do?
My contention is that I should continue to use BTOT. I should perhaps become an anti-realist with respect to BTOT. That is, I should say that BTOT is not what really happens. Nevertheless it is a sound scientific theory for pragmatic reasons. It predicts tree growth. It allow control of tree growth by orchardists, horticulturalists and others. By contrast, although TITG is shown to be true, it is of no practical use. It gives me no ability at prediction or control.
Comments anybody?
[Note: This is a reaction to randman's skeptical view of evolution, such as he is expressing in various posts in
A Whale of a Tale. It is my contention that such skepticism should lead to an anti-realist attitude toward ToE, rather than to an outright rejection. The intention is to discuss what makes for a good scientific theory.
Percy writes:
Creationism/ID isn't suddenly correct if evolution is wrong. If evolution is ever falsified you'll discover that Creationism/ID is still left out of science classrooms because it still doesn't qualify as science.
See
Message 51.
ToE is not adopted because it is true. Rather, it is adopted because if its empirical usefulness. Even if found untrue, it would continue to be used until there is a replacement theory that is at least as useful.]
Antirealism
The following is taken from
Page not found | UCL Philosophy - UCL — University College London:
Scientific Realism Versus Antirealism
Scientific theories seem, if taken literally, to describe an unobservable reality underlying the phenomena. Are there good reasons for interpreting theories in this way and for holding that they are true, or at any rate approximately true? Would the success of science be a miracle without this interpretation of theories? Or should we instead think of theories as merely instruments for codifying and predicting phenomena? Does the fact that any given set of data can be accommodated within an infinite number of possible scientific theories mean that there are never good reasons to accept any particular scientific theory on the basis of given data? Does the existence of scientific revolutions (and the possibility of further revolutions in the future) imply that there is no good reason to think our present theories even approximately true? Is there even an objective notion of what it takes for a claim to be false, but approximately true?
(Suggest: "Is it Science")
This message has been edited by nwr, 01-03-2006 01:12 PM
This message has been edited by nwr, 01-03-2006 02:48 PM