On the epistemology of Science
There are a lot of intelligent people here, and scientists as well, so there is no need for me to tell them about the epistemology of science. However, there does seem to be a general confusion expressed by some that science is just based on perception or
empiricism as it is called in the trade. This is not true, science is based on inference. Just perception can only tell you what is available to the senses and to the extensions to the senses, but if you want to know that which cannot be known with our current sensory means, then you have to use inference. Later, when the capacity of our sensory equipment increases, what was inferred could actually be brought into perception e.g. Many of the postulates of the Theory of Relativity at the time Einstein postulated it were purely based on inference, it is only later that we were able to empirically observe them e.g. gravity waves. There are still many things accepted in science which are inferential objects e.g atoms, we do not actually ever 'see' atoms, we see atoms indirectly by bombarding them with particles and from the back-scattering we can compute the size, mass, charge etc. In the future, we might design microscopes so powerful, that we would be able to directly see them.
So why do we use the word 'theory' like Theory of Atoms, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Quantum, and indeed Theory of Evolution? It is a theory because we cannot actually see it, but we can know from the effects that we see that it exists: There is a very similar arguments in the Samkhyakarika which tells us why there are things in this world that cannot be seen, and how we know that they exist.
7. Apprehension of even existent things do not arise because of excessive distance, excessive proximity, imperfect senses, absent mindedness, subtlety, suppressed by other objects, obstructed, mixed with similar objects(camouflaged) and other causes
8. The non perception of prakriti is because it is too subtle and not because it does not exist. It is detected through its effects. These effects are Mahat(great intelligence) and the rest. Some of them are similar and some of them are dissimilar to prakriti
Here you can see how Samkhya uses exactly the same kind of scientific inferences a modern day scientist would use to infer something unseen. I will revisit Samkhya when I talk about evolution.
'It is just a theory' this is the most common criticism made about scientific theories and I read somebody in this thread use this argument against ToE. In colloquial use when we say "It is my theory" we mean it is my idea that something is a certain way e.g. it is my theory that Atlantis will be found in the Indian ocean. In science, that is a
hypothesis literally meaning an idea that can be tested. If then a scientist does the investigations and goes to the Indian ocean to try and detect Atlantis based on effects they see and builds a huge body of empirical data which forces an inference that there really is a submerged continent there, then it becomes a theory. A theory needs to have three features for it be considered a
good theory 1)It must be able to explain all previous empirical data and any new empirical data 2)It must be able to predict future empirical data and 3)It must be parsimonious/simple no multiplication of assumptions and unknowns.
So understand this when you read Theory of Evolution, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Atoms, it means that of all the empirical data that has been collected so far on that subject, that current theory is the most simplest that accounts for all the data
thus far. Critics of ToE have to accept that ToE is the best and most simplest explanation we have so far that accounts for all the data in the fossil records, geological record and biological record. So just by saying it's only theory or a shared belief of scientists you pose absolutely no challenge to it. The only way you challenge a theory is by
falsifying it.
The good news is theories do get falsified, and thanks to Karl Popper for throwing light on this. The history of science is actually a history of falsification of previous theories. That is because any theory is based only on past and current empirical observations, it cannot account for future observations in the unobservable world. When new observations are made i.e., new empirical data comes along, if the current theory cannot account for it(in fact sometimes the current theory predicts the new observation) then the current theory is revised. If even after revision the current theory cannot account for the new empirical data, then the current theory stands falsified and an entirely new theory has to be created that can both account for all past empirical data and the new data e.g. Classical physics could not explain the behaviour of atoms, so modern physics(including QM and GR) was created
So how can you falsify TOE? There are two ways it can be falsified/
1) By discovering human fossils in an era where evolution predicts they can't be found. This is Cremo's approach.
2) By showing that there are certain features that could not be explained by natural selection. This is the approach of Intelligent design proponents. It is also a condition Darwin himself described as the way to falsify this theory, he felt the eye was one such feature that could pose a problem to his theory, because of its complex design, we of course know now that the eye was not always as complex as it is today, hence Darwin would be reassured.
Hence, I encourage the critics of ToE to take either or both of these approaches to continue the discussion, rather than repeat old chest nuts like "It's just a theory, why are apes still around"
