the idea of the contradiction comes from what I see as the deepest misunderstanding about science, which is the idea that science is about certainty.
Because obviously it’s easy to suggest that the earth sort of floats in nothing, but then you have to answer the question: why doesn’t it fall? The genius of Anaximander was to answer this question. We know his answer, from Aristotle, from other people. He doesn’t answer this question, in fact. He questions this question. He says why should it fall? Things fall toward the earth. Why the earth itself should fall? In other words, he realizes that the obvious generalization from every small heavy object falling, to the earth itself falling, might be wrong. He proposes an alternative, which is that objects fall towards the earth, which means that the direction of falling changes around the earth. […]
…what is being challenged at every step is not the theory, it’s the conceptual structure used in constructing theories and interpreting the data. In other words, it’s not changing theories that we go ahead, but changing the way we think about the world. […]
Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain. In fact, not only it’s not certain, but it’s the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure, but because they are the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they are the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody’s criticism. […]
Like João Figueiredo I was tempted to keep quoting the article. It’s simply a fantastic read. I come across some of the ideas/comments presented in the article when anti-science people comment on my posts or friend’s posts. At first glance, the anti-science people might find support in this article. However, if you read the whole thing, what he says at the end resonates with me and hopefully with other pro-science advocates.
#ScienceEveryday curated by ScienceSunday (Allison Sekuler Rajini Rao Robby Bowles and me)
Originally shared by João Figueiredo
Magnificent interview with quantum physicist Carlo Rovelli, where he dwells on what is Science and his passion with the pre-Socratic philosopher Anaximander:
Let me tell you a story to explain what I mean. The story is an old story about my latest, greatest passion outside theoretical physics: an ancient scientist, or so I would say, even if often he is called a philosopher: Anaximander. […]
Until him, all the civilizations of the planet, everybody around the world, thought that the structure of the world was: the sky over our heads and the earth under our feet. There’s an up and a down, heavy things fall from the up to the down, and that’s reality. Reality is oriented up and down, heaven’s up and earth is down. Then comes Anaximander and says: no, is something else. ‘The earth is a finite body that floats in space, without falling, and the sky is not just over our head; it is all around.’ […]
How he gets it? Well obviously he looks at the sky, you see things going around, the stars, the heavens, the moon, the planets, everything moves around and keeps turning around us. […] nobody else got to this simple realization that the sky is not just over our head, it’s also under our feet. Why?
Because obviously it’s easy to suggest that the earth sort of floats in nothing, but then you have to answer the question: why doesn’t it fall? The genius of Anaximander was to answer this question…_
How? Well, you can either watch the interview or read the transcript… If you need some context on Anaximander, I suggest The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps podcast on him:
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/anaximander-anaximines
via http://scipsy.tumblr.com/
http://edge.org/conversation/a-philosophy-of-physics
