Model Dependent Realism
As far as our senses and measuring instruments are concerned, the only thing that is real are the shadows. Whatever is casting those shadows is not directly accessible.
Model-dependent realism • Wikipedia
There's More Than One Way to Think about It
I find it funny that the thing the scientific method and quantum physics and biology taught me is that duality, diversity, plurality is reality. There isn’t one right answer to anything. Reductionism can be useful, but it’s not reality. And anyone who says it is is trying to sell you something.
So basically, if you tell me that there is only One Right Answer, I automatically assume that (1) you haven’t really given it much thought (2) you probably have no idea what you’re talking about. Reality is messy. You can develop ideal models and estimate, calculate, elide and cherry pick data that don’t fit the model, and, sure, this can uncover the outlines of some underlying process, but the model is not reality.
I still think of myself as an empiricist. Theories can be derived from empirical data, but they’re still just models of reality rather than reality itself. Reality encompasses all those theories we can imagine, and all of the even more numerous theories that we can’t.
I guess you could say I’m a radical skeptic who aspires to practicality :D
…there is a Great Truth, but whatever you believe isn’t it. Or, the way Hawking and Mlodinow seem to put it: who cares about The Truth, can you actually accurately predict things with your beliefs?
Ptolemy and Empiricism
It’s funny how people use the example of Copernicus and the heliocentric model as the archetype for scientific progress. The fact of the matter is that, at least initially, Ptolemy’s geocentric model actually still made more accurate predictions.
This is probably because Ptolemy incorporated empirical findings into his model (eventually causing it to evolve into something exceedingly and impossibly complex) whereas Copernicus made the (now known to be very inaccurate) assumption that planetary orbits are perfectly circular.
It was Galileo (often touted as the epitome of reason triumphing over unreason), then later Lorentz, then finally Einstein who realized that there is no privileged reference frame, which is why our current theory of gravity is known as Relativity. Because of the principle of relativity, it’s actually perfectly valid to consider the Earth at rest while the rest of the universe moves around it (although the calculations are much easier to perform if you pretend that the sun is stationary while the planets orbit in ellipses, and you ignore the effects of everything outside of the solar system.)
This is why the reductionist statement that Copernicus was right and Ptolemy was wrong always irks me. That’s almost never how science really progresses.
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown • 2013 Aug 24 • Mike Flynn • The TOF Spot
I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct.
Surprise! Of course, the details are important.
Look, I’m human: I say “The Sun rose in the east today”, and not “the rotation of the Earth relative to the rest of the Universe carried me around to a geometric vantage point where the horizon as seen from my location dropped below the Sun’s apparent position in space.” To us, sitting here on the surface of a planet, geocentrism is a perfectly valid frame of reference. Heck, astronomers use it all the time to point our telescopes. We map the sky using a projected latitude and longitude, and we talk about things rising and setting. That’s not only natural, but a very easy way to do those sorts of things. In that case, thinking geocentrically makes sense.
However, as soon as you want to send a space probe to another planet, geocentrism becomes cumbersome. In that case, it’s far easier to use the Sun as the center of the Universe and measure the rotating and revolving Earth as just another planet. The math works out better, and in fact it makes more common sense.
Geocentrism? Seriously? • 2010 Sep 14 • Phil Plait • Bad Astronomy
Wave-Particle Duality
I don’t understand the math well enough to actually know, but isn’t the reason why we even have a wave-particle duality because not only do we lack the precise language to describe the things that are waves-and-particles, but we also lack the precise equations to describe things as simultaneously waves-and-particles?
Like, the existing models can only describe the elementary constituents of matter as waves, or as particles, but there isn’t really a coherent model that can describe them as both at the same time?
Not All Knowledge is Science
Ethan Siegel points out the obvious that science is not the only form of knowledge and that non-science clearly has value.
It is true, of course, that there is no objective way to be sure that what we perceive or measure reality to be actually lines up with what reality actually is. But there is nothing wrong with wrestling with the concepts of solipsism, nor materialism, realism, idealism or other schools of philosophical thought.
Is there scientific knowledge to be gained from them? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a worthwhile endeavor to think about, particularly if it helps you to realize personal truths about yourself and how you deal with the world and Universe outside of your own mind. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with reminding ourselves of the assumptions we make inherent to all our endeavors in this Universe, whether they be scientific or not.
After all, the arts and humanities have a tremendous value to us as well, even if that isn’t scientific value.
Even if you have an insecurity about how important the thing you’re passionate about is, that’s no excuse to treat others like their passions are valueless simply because they aren’t yours.
What Scientific Arrogance Really Looks Like • 2014 May 15 • Ethan Siegel • Medium
Incompetence or Cronyism?
So switching from getting water from Detroit’s water district to the heavily polluted Flint River didn’t actually save Flint, MI any money.
What Went Wrong in Flint • 2016 Jan 26 • Anna Maria Barry-Jester • FiveThirtyEight
New emails reveal the switch to the Flint River was not about saving money • 2016 Jan 25 • Allie Gross • Detroit Metro Times
Anticholinergic Drugs and Alzheimer Disease
Apparently there is an association between regular use of anticholinergic drugs and the development of Alzheimer disease.
Strong Link Found Between Dementia, Common Anticholinergic Drugs • 2015 Apr 30 • Cynthia Fox • Drug Discover & Development
Three years of taking either daily Benadryl, Advil PM, Tylenol PM, or Motrin PM… is associated with about a ten percentage point increase in the probability of experiencing dementia or Alzheimer’s compared to no use.
Cumulative Use of Strong Anticholinergics and Incident Dementia A Prospective Cohort Study • 2015 Mar • Gray et al • JAMA Internal Medicine • The JAMA Network
Alzheimer disease is associated with the degeneration of cholinergic neurons, which is why acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are used to palliate symptoms (although cholinergic hypothesis has been called into question.)
Since Alzheimer dementia does not appear to be a straightforward case of degeneration of cholinergic neurons, I am skeptical there is a direct relationship between anticholinergic use and Alzheimer dementia.
I do wonder how much insomnia factors into the equation. Sleeping problems are also linked with an increased risk of dementia.
And while anticholinergics can put you to sleep, they don’t promote a normal sleep cycle.
Likewise, people with allergic rhinitis, depression, and urinary incontinence are likely to have disturbed sleep and to take anticholinergic medications as well.