What can’t be Tested
There is very little that cannot be tested against experience. There is a alot that cannot be tested to a level that would satisfy science, but that is different to saying that it cannot be tested.
It is not possible to prove anything absolutely, but that doesn’t mean that science is useless. It has been incredibly successful in its achievements. Similarly, being unable to prove something to a scientific level of proof, doesn’t mean that things shouldn’t be tested to the extent that they can be.
Many fields of human knowledge fall into this category, and whilst progress has not been as great as in science, there has been progress. The field of human behavior is sometimes referred to as social science. Some would argue that it is not worthy of the name science, but it is, nonetheless, a useful endeavor. Economic theories do help us understand economic activity. Not to a level of accuracy that physics or chemistry achieves, but it does improve our understanding and it does improve our ability to predict outcomes.
Psychology gives us an understanding of individual and group behavior, but again, it is not to a level of scientific accuracy. It is an understanding which is based on probability. It is a much lower level of probability than is the case for science but still high enough to be worthwhile.
Some areas of understanding are complicated by the sheer number of factors involved. The study and prediction of natural events such as weather, involve so many factors combining in countless combinations that exact weather prediction is hard even for short range forecasts. The science is valid. Each component of understanding is capable of scientific levels of accuracy, but their combination adds a complexity that brings the overall result down to a level of probable event rather than exact prediction.
Inexact conclusions based on probability are a large part of the sum of useful human knowledge. Much of it will always remain inexact, but by testing, the knowledge is improved. There is nothing wrong with knowledge based on probability as long as it is understood as that. Knowledge based on lower levels of probability can be useful as long as it continues to be tested and given the weight that the probability accords it.
It is not possible to prove anything absolutely, but that doesn’t mean that science is useless. It has been incredibly successful in its achievements. Similarly, being unable to prove something to a scientific level of proof, doesn’t mean that things shouldn’t be tested to the extent that they can be.
Many fields of human knowledge fall into this category, and whilst progress has not been as great as in science, there has been progress. The field of human behavior is sometimes referred to as social science. Some would argue that it is not worthy of the name science, but it is, nonetheless, a useful endeavor. Economic theories do help us understand economic activity. Not to a level of accuracy that physics or chemistry achieves, but it does improve our understanding and it does improve our ability to predict outcomes.
Psychology gives us an understanding of individual and group behavior, but again, it is not to a level of scientific accuracy. It is an understanding which is based on probability. It is a much lower level of probability than is the case for science but still high enough to be worthwhile.
Some areas of understanding are complicated by the sheer number of factors involved. The study and prediction of natural events such as weather, involve so many factors combining in countless combinations that exact weather prediction is hard even for short range forecasts. The science is valid. Each component of understanding is capable of scientific levels of accuracy, but their combination adds a complexity that brings the overall result down to a level of probable event rather than exact prediction.
Inexact conclusions based on probability are a large part of the sum of useful human knowledge. Much of it will always remain inexact, but by testing, the knowledge is improved. There is nothing wrong with knowledge based on probability as long as it is understood as that. Knowledge based on lower levels of probability can be useful as long as it continues to be tested and given the weight that the probability accords it.
posted by craig fotheringham at 11:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home