科学是一种纠错机制
科学是一种纠错机制
纳瓦尔: 好的解释从何而来?
目前有一种对归纳法的迷恋,即认为你可以根据过去预测未来。你可以说:“我看到了一、二、三、四、五,所以接下来必然是六、七、八、九。”
人们相信这就是新知识产生的方式,这就是科学理论形成的方式,这就是我们能够对宇宙做出合理解释的方式。
归纳法有什么问题,新知识实际上又来自哪里?
布雷特: 你之前提到了黑天鹅,我想回到这个话题。多年来人们一直用黑天鹅的例子来说明这样一个观点:反复观察同一现象不应让你确信它会在未来继续发生。
在欧洲我们有白天鹅,所以任何对鸟类感兴趣的生物学家都会观察一只又一只的白天鹅,并显然会得出结论:因此,所有的天鹅都是白色的。然后有人前往西澳大利亚,发现那里的天鹅看起来与欧洲的天鹅别无二致——但它们是黑色的。
让我们考虑另一个归纳法的例子。
从你生命开始以来,你一直观察到太阳升起。这是否意味着从科学角度你应该得出结论:太阳明天会升起,并且此后每天都会升起?这不是科学的本质。
科学不是编录过去发生的事件历史并假定它们会在未来再次发生。
科学是一个解释性框架。它是一种纠错机制。它从来不是”太阳过去总是升起,因此它未来也会升起”这样的形式。
我们可以想象出各种太阳明天不会升起的方式。你只需要去一趟南极洲,在那里一年中的某些月份太阳根本不会升起。
如果你去国际空间站,你不会看到太阳每天升起和落下一次。在你快速绕地球飞行的过程中,它会反复升起和落下。
它并不假定能够根据过去预测未来
Science Is an Error-Correcting Mechanism
Naval: Where do good explanations come from?
There’s currently an obsession with induction, the idea that you can predict the future from the past. You can say, “I saw one, then two, then three, then four, then five, so therefore next must be six, seven, eight, nine.”
There’s a belief that this is how new knowledge is created, that this is how scientific theories are formed and this is how we can make good explanations about the universe.
What’s wrong with induction, and where does new knowledge actually come from?
Brett: You mentioned the black swan earlier, and I’d like to go back to that. The black swan is an example people have used over the years to illustrate this idea that repeatedly observing the same phenomena over and over again should not make you confident that it will continue in the future.
In Europe we have white swans, so any biologist who’s interested in birds would observe white swan after white swan and apparently conclude that, therefore, all swans are white. Then someone travels to Western Australia and notices swans there look otherwise identical to the ones in Europe—but they’re black.
Let’s consider another example of induction.
Ever since the beginning of your life, you have observed that the sun has risen. Does this mean that scientifically you should conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow and rise every day after that? This is not what science is about.
Science is not about cataloging a history of events that have occurred in the past and presuming they’re going to occur again in the future.
Science is an explanatory framework. It’s an error-correcting mechanism. It’s not ever of the form, “The sun always rose in the past, therefore it will rise in the future.”
There are all sorts of ways in which we can imagine the sun won’t rise tomorrow. All you need to do is to take a trip to Antarctica, where the sun doesn’t rise at all for some months of the year.
If you go to the International Space Station, you won’t see the sun rise and set once per day. It will rise and set repeatedly over the course of your very fast journey around the Earth.
It does not presume to predict the future from the past