- Dec 20, 2003
- 13,624
- 2,675
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Is it ideological to refer to physical theories that have been borne out by the evidence in the rest of the scope? It is common in physics to extend the laws of physics to infer the things we have no direct evidence for, in circumstances where direct evidence for the laws of physics holding is tenuous or lacking.
A prime example of this is stellar lifecycles. We have numerous stars around us in (presumably) different stages of their lifecycles. We connect the dots by inferring a continuity and applying the laws of physics to give us a picture of stellar evolution. I wouldn't say that this is an ideological argument, since those laws of physics were established in a lab and in the field (elsewhere).
Just as I wouldn't say it's an ideological argument to extend evolution to cover the Cambrian explosion and link it to the precambrian era.
Science is useful when it has practical benefits for people and confirms or denies facts and myths. Experimental science sets clear limits to what can be said and allows us to improve the human understanding and condition. But inferred, speculative science which looks for the theory with the best explanatory power is dangerous in my view because ultimately it relies on the consensus of the scientific community for its authority. Thus authority becomes self referential and part of a closed system of peer review which does not allow its members to stray outside certain ideological limits. A scientist should be accountable to the facts that can be proven. This sets limits to what can be said but it also establishes a way to test and refute theories.
Upvote
0