For some time now, I have been thinking about stupid science quotes. And here is one I keep repeating "Science is an asymptote to the truth". I like it first and foremost because I believe I came up with it all by myself. Or, it could be a severe case of Cryptomnesia. In any case, I like the quote and I feel it succinctly and eloquently ties together all the failings and flailings of science. The truth about the Universe when completely known would enable us to predict the past, present and future of all that happened or will happen. Or, it might tell us that we may never be able to do so. But until then, we only get a bit closer to that goal. The quote's wisdom can be best demonstrated by the rise of quantum mechanics. Its rise does not negate classical mechanics. It merely points out that classical mechanics is just a limited version of quantum mechanics. So, in that sense, quantum mechanics brings us slightly closer to the truth of how matter really behaves.
One of the real big problems I faced as a child trying to defend the supremacy of science was the oft repeated refrain from many people that "Science cannot explain everything". Now, if you believe that science is just an asymptote to the truth, then it makes sense. Unless we bridge that gap (given infinite time), we will not be able to explain everything. It also neatly excuses us from explaining everything in a finite time. Being an asymptote, it would take us infinite time to explain everything. Hang around for that long, and we will give you all the answers.
But, recently I have started thinking about it a bit more, and I now believe that the entire scientific enterprise can be thought of as a natural selection of 'ideas'. Ideas interact with data or facts. So, in that sense, ideas are the living organisms of science, and data and facts are the environment in which they thrive. Much like natural selection, we can think of 'survival of the fittest' of these ideas. A few facts change and the 'fit' idea no longer is good enough. This has happened, multiple times most notably and noticeably during evolution of quantum mechanics. The one world changing fact was the ultraviolet collapse. Tilll we had instruments capable of measuring accurately the spectra of elements, we were oblivious to the quantum world. The emergence of that fact was like the coming of the ice age. All manner of dinosaurean ideas that ruled the world since Newton suddenly had to become extinct. And from this chaos, was born Bohr's idea, and from that Shcrodinger's equations and Dirac's equations etc etc.
I like the natural selection view of science because it explains a lot. Much like variation is the bedrock of natural selection, so is variation in ideas the bedrock of evolution of science. Over-indulgence in peer review that is why is a dangerous thing. It is akin to a process of cloning organisms within an environment. In the short term, cloning a 'fit' organism is the best thing to do. All of them will be highly successful within that environment. But, change the environment and suddenly they vanish like the dinosaurs. Peer review rewards re-stating the familiar arguments. And it leads to short term success by everyone patting each other on the back. But, new facts emerge and suddenly the entire group is made redundant and useless. So, it is absolutely essential that we maintain a healthy dose of skeptics in every field possible. The more variation we have in ideas, the better the chances of long term success of Science. In summary, peer review or any kind of review is bad for science. Whenever you give power to a small group of people (in this case 3 reviewers out of the millions of scientists), it is bound to lead to failure. I say, we should let everyone publish on their own. If the idea is good and explains a lot, people would pay to read your ideas. If they are crap, nobody would care to read. Or in other words, what I am saying in a long winded speech is "Abolish PhDs and PostDocs". Let every man fight to the death for his ideas. Survival of the fittest indeed. Layers upon layers of it....
One of the real big problems I faced as a child trying to defend the supremacy of science was the oft repeated refrain from many people that "Science cannot explain everything". Now, if you believe that science is just an asymptote to the truth, then it makes sense. Unless we bridge that gap (given infinite time), we will not be able to explain everything. It also neatly excuses us from explaining everything in a finite time. Being an asymptote, it would take us infinite time to explain everything. Hang around for that long, and we will give you all the answers.
But, recently I have started thinking about it a bit more, and I now believe that the entire scientific enterprise can be thought of as a natural selection of 'ideas'. Ideas interact with data or facts. So, in that sense, ideas are the living organisms of science, and data and facts are the environment in which they thrive. Much like natural selection, we can think of 'survival of the fittest' of these ideas. A few facts change and the 'fit' idea no longer is good enough. This has happened, multiple times most notably and noticeably during evolution of quantum mechanics. The one world changing fact was the ultraviolet collapse. Tilll we had instruments capable of measuring accurately the spectra of elements, we were oblivious to the quantum world. The emergence of that fact was like the coming of the ice age. All manner of dinosaurean ideas that ruled the world since Newton suddenly had to become extinct. And from this chaos, was born Bohr's idea, and from that Shcrodinger's equations and Dirac's equations etc etc.
I like the natural selection view of science because it explains a lot. Much like variation is the bedrock of natural selection, so is variation in ideas the bedrock of evolution of science. Over-indulgence in peer review that is why is a dangerous thing. It is akin to a process of cloning organisms within an environment. In the short term, cloning a 'fit' organism is the best thing to do. All of them will be highly successful within that environment. But, change the environment and suddenly they vanish like the dinosaurs. Peer review rewards re-stating the familiar arguments. And it leads to short term success by everyone patting each other on the back. But, new facts emerge and suddenly the entire group is made redundant and useless. So, it is absolutely essential that we maintain a healthy dose of skeptics in every field possible. The more variation we have in ideas, the better the chances of long term success of Science. In summary, peer review or any kind of review is bad for science. Whenever you give power to a small group of people (in this case 3 reviewers out of the millions of scientists), it is bound to lead to failure. I say, we should let everyone publish on their own. If the idea is good and explains a lot, people would pay to read your ideas. If they are crap, nobody would care to read. Or in other words, what I am saying in a long winded speech is "Abolish PhDs and PostDocs". Let every man fight to the death for his ideas. Survival of the fittest indeed. Layers upon layers of it....
Comments