risposta parziale a obscuredbywind

Ok - you seem to still go around the main problems concerning a scientific theory. You must have in mind something like a religious understanding of what a a Scientific Theory is; listen to me, A scientific theory consists in a corpus of hypotheses to explain certain facts, events, processes taking place within Nature. As such it is not different from a police investigation that tries to expose individuate and arrest a killer. How many people have been sent to jail on the basis of overwhelming evidence and were innocent? How many theories have been substituted by new better theories? Evidence is usually the problem: Think about it. These are the main reasons why a Scientific theory may fail or be for ever open to revisions !!!. Here are four points to reflect upon: 1)Given a corpus of hypotheses and a large amount of evidence we have the first problem: no matter how much evidence you can collect there is always the possibility that one day more evidence will falsify the theory (see Hempel on the logical structure of Scientific theories). 2) Given a theory T and a corpus of hypotheses H, we can always construe a theory T1 with a corpus of hypotheses H1 logically incompatible with H and yet supported by all the evidence that supports T. The reason why you don’t find many of these incompatible theories around is because it is a waste of time to construe them. And there is always the possibility that T1 may turn out to be false in the light of a new experiment. This thesis known as underdetermination of theories ( see Duhem, Quine) is a possibility not proven, but very conceivable. A little example may be two different quantum mechanics Theory one asserting the existence of muons(I think they are called) and the other denying it (muons are particles faster than light) . Still another could be a unification of Relativity and quantum mechanics call it theory T and, relativity, quantum mechanics and M Theory (superstring theory) call it theory T1. The two theories are logically incompatible, given the fact that T1 includes the assumption that there are symmetries of all kinds in the universe and T does not. In addition the two theories are constructed on different geometries, T on a four dimensional geometry and T1 on a much larger dimensional geometry. Since there might be no way to ever find out if reality consists of more than four dimensions they are supported by all evidence, present past and future, the only difference being in the fact that T1 can explain on a logical (mathematical) ground Relativity and Quantum mechanics together, they say, and the other does not. But the possibility of discovering new dimensions although technically difficult is not impossibile. 3) Holism. In the presence of an unexpected experiment that is contrary to the theory, the scientist never knows which one of the hypotheses must be removed. It becomes a question of convenience or a choice or whatever you want to pinpoint as the reason but there is no way to say anything about the culprit in the theory (see Quine). 4) Any scientific assertion allegedly contain reference to a number of entities, objects and their relations. There is no guarantee however that those entities exist in reality, the assertion may still be true or false independently of its ontological commitment. ( Indeterminacy of translation, see Quine on ontological relativity). These four points combined together constitute a problem for any scientific theory whether you have in mind Physics, the paradigmatic science, or evolutionary biology, psychology and sociology. The more you depart from physics the most likely you stumble into approximation, vagueness,and vulnerability. If you add to all these that mathematics, considered the most certain and firm theory of all has been challenged by Godel’s theorem which shows that the system is not closed and therefore vulnerable, you have a picture of uncertainty that should reduce or set in a better framewoek your blind faith in science. I will answer other points later if I find the time.