advanced mode Why Science Is Wrong

In 1894, American scientist Albert Michelson (Albert Michelson) predicted that there were no discoveries in physics.

He is known as the first American to receive the Nobel Prize in this field, and he was not the only one who thought so then. In fact, it was not uncommon among scientists at that time.

For 500 years before that, impressive advances in science have been achieved. Great minds, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Faraday and Maxwell, inspired new paradigms, and it seemed that suddenly we had a fairly precise basis for the laws of nature.

There was no doubt that we would continue to move forward, but it turned out that our calculations and theories were accurate enough that nothing significant happened.

And then everything changed. About ten years after this prediction, in 1905, an unknown person working as a patent clerk in Switzerland published what we now know as documents of Annus mirabilis. They are one of the four most influential scientific articles ever written by anyone.

They answered questions that we did not even understand, and they presented a lot of new things.

They completely distorted our notion of space, time, mass and energy, and subsequently they will become the basis for many revolutionary ideas formulated during the next half century. Seeds for the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics - the two pillars of modern physics - were planted on the day that these articles were published.

During the year, Albert Einstein completely changed our understanding of the universe.

Everything is approaching
At any time in history, most people thought that they already knew everything.

By definition, if we call something a law or a theory, then we define the boundary of our knowledge, and as soon as this boundary becomes a part of our life, as soon as we have the conviction that it is true, it is not difficult to understand how we eventually narrow down our prejudices.

If you were someone from the 17th century said that one day a person can fly, that space and time are basically interchangeable, and that a cell phone can do what it can do, there is a high probability that they do not would react with seriousness.

The beauty and curse of human knowledge is that it often does not have to be completely right to be useful. That's why, if it works, it's hard for us to understand why and how it can be wrong.

For example, when Einstein completed his general theory of relativity, she refuted many of Newton's works. He drew a more accurate picture of what was actually happening. Nevertheless, this does not mean that Newton's laws are no longer suitable and relevant for most activities.

Over time, we are getting closer and closer to the truth, less mistaken. But we probably will never fully understand the world. Too many difficulties.

There is a chance that even the General Theory of Relativity and our perception of evolution will one day be regarded as elementary, as we now see some of Newton's works.

Science is always wrong, and defining the boundaries of what we think and what we know is the limitation of the opportunities to move forward. You have to be careful with what you think is true.

Limitations of laboratories
In most cases, the uncertainty of the scientific method is an advantage. This is a method of improvement. Nevertheless, beyond the limits of strict physics and chemistry, this advantage becomes a vice. This is especially true of economics, psychology and behavioral sciences (behaviorism).

These industries tend to observe behavior that is evaluated subjectively and this leaves room for a large number of human errors. In 2005, Stanford professor John Ioannidis published an article titled Why Most Published Research Findings Are ("Why most published research results are false"), and one of the things he showed was that about 80 percent small, non-randomized studies later proved to be erroneous.

Given that most of the research falls into this category and that the media make a sensation from any study that creates a good headline, it is pretty obvious why this is a problem. Moreover, more recently, the crisis of replicating sensations has spread to many long-standing views, which are also being questioned.

Researchers also have their own interests, and sometimes, even beyond their will, there are so many variables that can influence observation one way or another, that one study in itself is a very weak and unreliable indicator for the formation of a worldview. Repetition of research matters.

It should also be added that there is another less-discussed reservation that accompanies most of the research.

Experiment in the laboratory can never fully recreate the conditions that arise in the complex and dynamic systems of the world. Reality is much more complicated than anything we can create.

It is important, for example, to recognize that science is an approximation. Many of the laws and theories that we believe to be true can well be refuted in the future. We in our path of knowledge did not come to an end, and the truth remains unattainable.

In addition, outside of several basic scientific disciplines, many studies are relatively weak. It is difficult not to let the element of human bias break into our observations in psychology and behavioral sciences, and we also need to be careful in how we interpret the results.

The use of science for a better understanding of the surrounding world and of ourselves is crucial. This is the best that we have. Nevertheless, it is important to see the whole picture.

Science is really wrong, but if we know how and why, we can use it to the fullest.