TED Community » Yaron Tokayer
About Me
- Location:
- United States, Teaneck, NJ
- Gender:
- Male
More About Me
I'm passionate about
Learning. Education. Science. Judaism and it's relationship to the contemporary world. Nature. Music.
Comments
Load 4 more Comments (Showing 1 - 10 of 14)Favorite talks
This member doesn't have any favorite talks yet.
TEDCred score: +1.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
It sounds like you are stressing the importance of humility in science. (This has come up a bit--you may enjoy reading some of the conversations below. check out Ben Jarvis's, Krisztián Pintérand's, and Mark Kurtz's). I like your point of questioning what it means to "know" something. I agree. I've come to believe through this conversation that "knowledge" is not the business of science.
A reply on Conversation: Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
I've tried to think about it, and I can't seem to find meaning in the word "truth," other than usefulness. Meaning, I think it's pragmatic to describe theories as true to the extent that they work. Call it truth, call it heresy, or call it black magic--the only testable difference in the world will always come down to whether or not it predicts accurately. I am in agreement with you.
I think the question of truth then become psychological--a human belief. To be sure, I think belief in truth can be important in areas other than experimental sciences, but I don't see it's place in scientific discourse.
A reply on Conversation: Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
But do you not acknowledge the innate human (and maybe most species?--they just aren't as successful?) desire to grow in understanding and dominance of the universe? This may be a meaningless aspiration and it probably does us well to overcome it, but it seems to be a shared human sentiment across generations. I think this may be what Hadar was reffering to as scary.
A reply on Conversation: Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
From the little that I've read and learned formally (from you), I believe it is true that Kuhn is commonly misunderstood in that way. I tried to use the term in a parve (neutral) way, but thanks for the clarification.
So if I'm understanding correctly, this "cross-referencing" that Kuhn calls for is acknowledging that accurate results from old theories are maintained in later ones, as they should be. And sometimes we'll even utilize an older language to describe things because it is most useful if a particular case. For example, we may use Newton's formula for gravity in a simply 2 body problem, because it is a good way to look at the problem, even if it may not be the entire picture, according to general relativity. Is this correct?
It also sounds like Kuhn does believe then in a sort of convergence of theories. Scientific progress, according to him, seems like an iterative revision proccess, which to me implies finer and finer tunings and an eventual finished product.
A reply on Conversation: Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
I think you bring up a good point about the scary and daunting thought of never achieving a complete knowledge of the universe. I also find it interesting that--and this has come up a few times already--this doesn't seem to discourage us. Human curiosity has proven quite resilient, even when many do not believe in an end goal. I guess it's the passional experience that keeps us going rather than the end result.
You wrote, "I think we all know that humanity will never really achieve a full understanding of all of science." I wouldn't be so sure. What I've found so interesting and what I've learned in bringing this up to family and peers is that people tend to be very sure one way or the other.
A reply on Conversation: Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
I think I'm with you on the small thinking. It brings to mind Francis Fukuyama's 1989 essay "The end of history?" in which he basically suggested that the end of the Cold War signified the end of man's sociological development and eternal acceptance of democracy. I find it very easy to be skeptical of such ambitious claims, much like William Thomson's and von Jolly's quoted above. You may want to check out the thread that Ben Jarvis started a few comments below.
A reply on Conversation: Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
I like what you pointed out about knowledge not necessarily stopping human exploration. I've been thinking a lot about it since this conversation started (cf. my last response to you). Do discoveries always demand a revision of theory? Otherwise they don't really sound like discoveries, but rather observing things we already know to be true. I don't know. I would like to believe though, as I mentioned in my response to Bob Stiglitz, that human curiosity and drive to understand and probe the world is endless, even if we get to a point when we have a comprehensive science.
Back to the many worlds--I think your theory makes sense to me, but I wonder if it's a useful one. What good are solutions to problems if they were solved in some other offshoot of a universe I once belonged to? The many-worlds interpretation of QM is nice, but it just doesn't satisfy a pragmatist like me.
Thanks for your valuable input.
A reply on Conversation: Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
Very interesting. It sounds like you don't necessarily believe in an (attainable, at least) "scientific truth" that will end the quest to refine our science, but rather that humans will become satisfied with what we know, and won't feel the need to extend our knowledge. Meaning, we will get to a point where our science does enough for us and practically there won't be a need for more discovery--even if there are still things we don't understand! That's quite a unique view.
I've always wanted to believe that human curiosity and our drive to understand and probe the world is endless. You seem to be saying that it will run out and we will be complacent with how well we understand things. I guess time will tell.
A reply on Conversation: Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
I'm not sure I understand (and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your comment)--which is it? Do you believe yes and yes, that we will eventiually have a comprehensive "true" science, or that there will always be new fields of exploration? In my mind, it has to be one or the other.
Do you mean that just because our theory may be complete one day, that will not halt our curiosity to further explore our universe with that theory? This would imply that discoveries don't always have to force a revision of theory.
A reply on Conversation: Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
That narrative is exactly what I was referring to. I think that last line sums it up well :)
So my understanding is that you are arguing for "pessimistic meta-induction," or the belief that we will never settle on a final science of the world, based on the fact that every theory until now has been replaced. I find this pretty convinving as well. However--and this is what holds me back form fully subscribing to pessimistic meta-induction--doesn't it seem like the corrections we are making are becoming more and more fine-tuned? Newton introduced gravity and shattered the Aristotelian view. Einstein didn't debunk the idea of gravity, but rather explained it in a way that accounted for more things. Indeed, our theories are still being replaced, but don't the corrections seem to be getting more petty as time goes on?