The Direction of Science

Did you know: the Earth is the center of the solar system? If, for some reason, you aren't keen to believe my word for it then here's Stephen Hawking (recall that Ptolemy proposed the Earth-centered solar system and Copernicus proposed the Sun-centered system we are familiar with today): “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true… one can use either picture as a model of the Universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the Sun to be at rest.” You see, if we assume the Earth is at rest, and thus everything in the solar system revolves around it rather than the Sun, it is entirely possible to build out an alternate consistent framework of the entire cosmos. Imagine if humanity did decide to adopt the Earth-centric model, and consider the cascading effects this would have on such fundamental fields as mathematics, topology, geometry, leading into physics, chemistry, and so on. Importantly, this entire hypothetical framework is no less real than the scientific framework we have today - in a way they represent different (perfectly valid) directions of scientific progress. So is the direction we are headed in arbitrary?

Thankfully, Stephen Hawking further explains why in practice it is still best for us to use the Copernican system: “Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of the universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” It is entirely sensible that simpler scientific theories should be adopted, but it is precisely the allure of this approach that makes it dangerous. How is it that we measure the simplicity of a theory? A theory’s simplicity can only be measured against the other theories within the same scientific system. For example, Hawking proposes we measure the complexity of the Sun vs. Earth -centric models by how easily the equations of motion work out, but how do we measure the simplicity of the equations of motion? In a recursive manner it is dependent upon even earlier theories of the same scientific system.

I am not here to say that our current scientific system is a falsehood, for scientists throughout history have worked exceptionally hard to verify that our system is precisely explaining all observed phenomena. But there are fundamental issues with our approach. The collective phenomena that we observe are completely dependent upon the measurements we choose to perform, and those measurements are heavily influenced by our current body of scientific knowledge. On top of this, scientific research precipitates technological advancements which provide the means to measure the Universe further in the same direction. Over time this is sure to produce a self-reinforcing system that is likely to see other systems as ‘incorrect’ simply because those other systems would have resulted in an entirely different set of measurements.

To illustrate the issue further, allow us to explore the flat-Earth theory. As a disclaimer, modern proponents of this theory are likely to promote public ignorance and hinder true progress as they dispute valid observations. The problem, though, is that someone simply claiming the Earth is flat isn’t wrong. If we assume the Earth is flat, and hold this as unequivocal, we can indeed construct valid explanations for all observed phenomena. We would rely on entirely different frameworks of space and geometry, as well as relative motion, and astronomy would become a beast unrecognizable to our current astronomical systems. As we encounter more observations, like satellite imagery, our explanations would get increasingly complicated. However, they would still be valid scientific explanations. The key here is to start imagining what other developments would come out of the flat-Earth science. Entirely new fields might emerge that we don’t have today, just as we have fields today which would likely wouldn't have developed for a long, long time in the flat-Earth science. New technology and conceptions about the Universe would unfold, perhaps including such fundamental questions as its origin. As the effects compound, the flat-Earth science would gather an entirely different set of measurements and observations that demand explanations. Importantly, as alien as they are to each other, neither our current system nor this hypothetical one would be more ‘real’. However, if neither system can explain all the observed phenomena made by both sets of observations then neither system is complete.

Consider how phenomena we observe today would be exceptionally hard to explain through other scientific frameworks (which we falsely assume means ours is best). Perhaps, then, phenomena that we have an exceptionally hard time explaining today ourselves are actually indications that another system may work better. As an example to provoke imagination, consider dark matter and dark energy. Since we demand that we do not throw out all the progress we’ve made developing our current frameworks for particle physics and astronomy we have to stretch our current theories to come up with an explanation for the bizarre observations we have made (weakly interacting massive particles, extra dimensions, etc.). It’s not that these explanations won’t work, but consider that to another scientific system our approach may be viewed as unnecessarily complex, just how we would view the Ptolemaic society trying to explain the movements of the planets using complicated mathematical systems.

So, science could have gone down many other paths, but at the end of the day all we can do is work with what we have. Clearly, for any given researcher, it is far more effective to build off the vast body of theories and specialized mathematics that comprises the current state of the scientific industry, as opposed to a solo venture based on vastly different axioms (and, subsequently, hundreds of years of specialized mathematics). However, I ask you to consider the coming advancements in our computational power, which, if the super-exponential trend continues, will balloon in the next decade more than the previous two (as a rough ballpark of a larger trend). We could then take something like the flat-Earth theory, hold it as true, and whip up a set of mathematical frameworks, geometrical frameworks, and more in no time at all (effectively simulating hundreds of years of scientific and mathematical development down this path). A theory based on the flat earth framework, when processed through advanced computational models, could produce testable predictions. This transcends our modern belief that there is only one system of truth, allowing us to empirically evaluate hypotheses born from radically different axioms. Such a process of science does not reduce the importance of empirical evidence, rather, it magnifies its role as the universal arbiter in discourse. This approach could signify a new era of scientific inquiry. Excitingly, it would all seem to happen rather quickly.