Jeremy 0922

A scientific theory or model about nature must obey scientific rules,such as logic, causality, and could completely not partially be confirmed by the facts

 

Well that is not the way we learn, teach or practice Science from an early level.

Take for instance the typical highschool maths questions

'A mass M is suspended from a light inextensible string...............'

A rigid rod of length l supports two blocks....'

'A frictionless pulley.....'

Yet these methods yield reproducible results adequate for many purposes.

People every day bet their lives on calculations known to be inaccurate or based on known false assumptions because observation (experience) has shown that those calculations are adequate for purpose.

Sometimes we have results without explanation and scientific theories are offered a conceivable explanations, such as the reversing magnetic fields of Earth, but we do not rely on them because they also predict effects we do not observe.

Sometimes we have theories that offer apparantly good explanations and the authors of better ones struggle against the establishment to promote them, (isotasy v plate techtonics for instance), but usually further observations come to light which weed out the inadequate.

These days we seek corroboration or exception more actively than ever, because we are aware of this.

But we should always be wary of specifying how any theory 'should be' .

I said 'adequate through experience' above this is a process that gives us increasing confidence in a theory as we make more and more observations that agree with its predictions, but fail to find exceptions.

This is the case with Quantum Mechanics,

And I commend it to the House.