This is another post based on a comment by our online frenemy, Karl K. He said [1],
“So naturalists get to have their certainty and be skeptics at the same time and never be at risk of being proven in error because their certainty is based on something that cannot be directly observed. Very convenient.”
But the study of nature has no absolutes. The conclusions, like the law of gravity or the photoelectric effect, are tentative. They are correct only in that they have never been shown to be wrong and fit a consistent mathematical model. A naturalist expects dropped toast to land on the floor with greater certitude than that it will be butter down. (They actually did experiments to prove that it will be butter side down given the correct parameters of table height, bread size, and horizontal velocity. Those just happen to match the typical breakfast situation.)
Naturalists, or scientists if you prefer, know no absolutes. Everything that is “known” is based on a solid model, every part of which could be — yet no part of which has been — proven false. We know that electrons tunnel through potential barriers in much the same way that we know that apples will fall downward.
But no one has ever directly observed an electron. We just know how they behave by the effects they have on other things. We know that they are neither solid objects, nor continuous waves. But they affect other things in both of these ways. As a result, we now use devices every day that rely on predictable quantum tunneling. In fact, these devices test this theory over 2,000,000,000 times a second in 2,000,000,000 simultaneous locations. And that’s just the device you’re using to read this (2GHz CPU by 2GB RAM). If it was slightly wrong only once in every 4,000,000,000,000,000,000 times, your machine would crash every second.
But the electron is just a theory. Still, Karl disrespects the confidence that Naturalists have in their methodology.
Likewise, no one has directly observed more obscure particles such as quarks. Yet their behavior is as well documented as that of electrons. We understand nuclear decay fairly well. Yet no one has directly observed a down quark become an up quark (neutron decay, beta emission). But it has been carefully studied for almost a century, and the behavior is well known. Anyone wishing to find a flaw in the theory is welcome to try, and claim a Nobel Prize in the process. That neutrino flux may affect weak-interaction decay rates on Earth on the order of a percent is a recent and still unconfirmed observation. Exciting news that may help us better calibrate instruments based on the theory.
Meanwhile, radiological dating gets more and more corroboration between methods and among other methods. Carbon-14 dating is mostly useful and well calibrated over the span of human history (about 10,000 years). It correlates well with historical records, dendrochronology, thermoluminescence, amino acid racimization, magneto-orientation, and other methods that overlap with it and extend the range.
If the theory behind any dating technique is wrong, it will be discovered. That is the article of faith Naturalists hold as true. As a corollary, any change to the theory is likely to be incremental rather than revolutionary; given the vast store of evidence currently supporting it.
As with changes to all scientific theories, Mathematician Piet Hein said it best:
The Road to Wisdom?
Well, it’s Plain And Simple to Express:
Err
and err
and err again,
But less
and less
and less.
Print this post [2]
[3]