Ceci N'est Pas Une Pipe: A Scientific Application!

[omarrocks]

Rene Francois Ghislain Magritte was an Belgian artist, who specialised in surreal juxtaposition in his art pieces. Some of his works include La Trahison Des Images (The Treachery Of Images), The Son Of Man, Golconda and Time Transfixed.

As it is in science, so the same holds true for other disciplines: there is always overlap. Everything, just like in Nature, is linked, and coevolves thus.

An interesting application came to light after being made aware of Rene Magritte's work in terms of scientific pursuit, specifically, the use of models. Now, I know that no scientist ever claims to "have all the answers" or "to always be right" or indeed, "to be wildly incorrect

". Science in itself, is a idealistic process that becomes flawed the moment imperfect creatures such as ourselves deign to practice it.

However, applying Magritte's work captioned "Cece n'est pas une pipe", how do we know, that the model we have, whether it be a model of a molecular process (such as the Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor) or on a larger scale, (say, the ecological flux of the hydrosphere), is actually the true representation of reality? How do we know that that which we see and take as fact, is in fact...fact?

Magritte's answer to the question when people objected was that it wasn't a pipe, but simply a photograph of a pipe. How do we know that current embryological theory is correct, with the scientific models we have? How do we know that the model we elucidate from experimental data is the actual representation of what we see? If one introduces Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, then how can we ever be sure?

Thus, the problem becomes clear: how can we ever be sure that the models we have, for let's say, biochemical evolution in the metazoan lineage, will ever be correct?

How do we know that the interpretation of the world around us in books in libraries, in computer resources, in Natural History Museums, in Bioinformatics databases, in every laboratory across the world-isn't some gross caricature of what is reality? And if it is thus (because this is after all, an evolution and intelligent design board) what are the implications for evolutionary theory?

Feel free to post your replies. I hope you will find this interesting.

Blessings and love all.

Here's my source (even if it wikipedia):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magritte

ps I would also like to add that I am a Christian, and a theistic evolutionist, and biochemist. So, for all you who do not know me, please don't assume I'm just another Creationist having a bash at science, because I'm not.

 

[Washington]

However, applying Magritte's work captioned "Cece n'est pas une pipe", how do we know, that the model we have, whether it be a model of a molecular process (such as the Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor) or on a larger scale, (say, the ecological flux of the hydrosphere), is actually the true representation of reality? How do we know that that which we see and take as fact, is in fact...fact?

I assume by "model" you mean theory or hypothesis. These are never taken as fact, or a "true representation of reality,."

Magritte's answer to the question when people objected was that it wasn't a pipe, but simply a photograph of a pipe. How do we know that current embryological theory is correct, with the scientific models we have? How do we know that the model we elucidate from experimental data is the actual representation of what we see? If one introduces Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, then how can we ever be sure?

And just how do you think Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would be introduced into the "model"?

So there's no problem, much less a clear one. Models, theories, and hypotheses don't pretend to be correct in the sense of absolute fact, which is why they remain models, theories, and hypotheses. They are often not much more than best explanations, or attempts at best explanations.

 

[acropolis]

How do we know that the interpretation of the world around us in books in libraries, in computer resources, in Natural History Museums, in Bioinformatics databases, in every laboratory across the world-isn't some gross caricature of what is reality? And if it is thus (because this is after all, an evolution and intelligent design board) what are the implications for evolutionary theory?

I'm just an undergrad physics student, so I wouldn't really know, but I don't think the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle comes into play much even at the cellular level. Light would create a negligible amount of uncertainty in subcellular structure.

Either way, I think it's highly probable that our current model of reality is terribly incomplete. It's hard to imagine that it isn't. But just because there is a great deal of reality out there we don't know about, does not mean that our current model will be completely destroyed or even radically changed by further investigation. Even if our fundamental understanding of what the universe really is changes, our mathematical models will still work with just as much accuracy as they do presently.

I think mankind's model of the solar system provides a good example for the affect of major paradigm shifts on scientific theory. The Geocentric model of the solar system, despite being so utterly destroyed conceptually, will still give very accurate predictions for the positions of the planets and their moons. Similarly, the dramatic paradigm shifts due to quantum mechanics and relativity superseding Newtonian physics did not destroy Newtonian physic's predictive ability. The same principle applies to evolution; a radical change in humanity's knowledge of reality will not change evolution's utility or predictive power.

That said, the position of theistic evolution that you and I share requires that science be radically incomplete and, if I understand you correctly, a gross caricature of Reality. This represents a major departure from, for a lack of a better term, orthodox science. But it does not have any implications for evolution beyond fixing it with a definite purpose; evolution is still every bit as robust and substantiated as it was without the change in the nature of reality.

The completeness of any theory can never be known. Anything scientific is falsifiable, and there is no way to prove that something will not be discovered that will disprove a theory in part or in whole. Applying the Halting Test to the entirety of science means that humanity would need to know everything before we could determine whether or not we could ever know everything.