I was recently having a discussion with my father, who is going through college with me for an aviation maintenance program. We were doing some physics review and he kept asking me a couple of questions about how exactly we know about atoms and stuff. Mainly, he kinda joked with me about how I just accepted some of the stuff without asking how we knew it. I actually DID learn a bit of the nature of how we got many of the models he asked (like how do we know that atoms exist and aren’t being bull crapped by scientists for some agenda; should mention that he is a tad bit skeptical of science). However, it has been a while so I was a tad bit rusty. He kinda pushed a bit more on some things, and gave this example: pointing to a deer head on the wall, he asked that if generations of people were told that said deer mount was God or something, and I was then taught in class that said deer mount was God, would I believe it? Or, he asked if he smacked two sticks against a cup and said it was “such and such” and studied to for however long and declared it a phenomenon, would I believe it or whatever. I suppose it was kinda meant to undermine science’s base assumptions and since I don’t ponder the base of science too often, I wasn’t really able to provide a satisfactory explanation.
So, I was hoping someone here could kinda explain how the things we know are true. How can we trust our understanding of atoms and such? I would like to very much ask any responses to be polite. I asked him to create his own Biologos account to ask this question but he was kinda skeptical of this organization too. So, I was just going to have him read the replies as a guest and don’t want to make him feel alienated any more.
(I guess also on this topic would be any suggestions on how I could un-rust myself on some of these topics. I’m gonna try and start a habit of watching a few Khan Academy science videos a night alongside reading the section of my Our Daily Bread. I’m also hoping to acquire Cosmos by Carl Sagan whenever I get the chance. If you guys also had any ideas for things to get me back in the scientific mindset, I would appreciate it!)
I wonder whether you will get the same answer from everyone.
There are several underlying principles that would govern the response, the most obvious being the nature of truth. What science declares as “true” and what I declare as true might not tally. If so, who do you trust.
In general terms a scientific truth would be one that can be demonstrated or repeated, or, in the case of atoms, visually confirmable, albeit using the right equipment. The caveat being conspiracy theories, especially when the “proof” relies on technology or human intervention, eg electron microscopes or some sort of electronic recording. At some point it boils down to trust, especially if we do not have the means to prove or see it our selves but have to rely on images that have been reproduced. As photo technology and AI improves we can get more and more skeptical.
Theology or God transcends all of that and is pure faith and belief.
It would be trite, but probably accurate to say
We cannot know anything for certain unless we believe either our own senses and/or what is told or shown us.
Good question, but you’re asking the wrong people. I think you should be discussing it with your father.
For example, one of these sentences is true:
A water molecule is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
A water molecule is NOT made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
I would ask him which sentence is true, and why he believes it.
None of us knows everything by personal experience, so trust in some form is essential. To take a simple example, my wife and I had dinner last night with our two sons. As always, conversation included a catch up on what they have been doing over that time. Are they telling the truth? I presume so, but I can only base it on trust. (And by the way, did you believe me when I talked about this family meal?)
I believe science because, why not? I’m completely non science in my education, but I believe for non science reasons. For example, the Oppenheimer movie: the atomic bomb seems to be a pretty good evidence of the underlying theoretical science.
If I was chatting with your father I’d focus on areas of interest to him. So you are doing an aviation maintenance course? I would have thought that the history of aviation science would be a good starting point. Anyone who gets in an aeroplane must trust science at some level.
Find a history of the development of physics. The history of the idea of atoms is a long one starting with Democritus in the 5th century BC who gave us the name atom and shows how science can modify our understanding as new information is discovered.
If thousands of people had run tests that anyone (with the right gear) could duplicate, and those tests came out with agreed results, of course believe it!
See, his understanding of science is wrong: it isn’t just telling people what to believe, it’s inviting the world to prove you wrong.
In modern English usage, science typically refers to making observations, predictions, and retrodicitons [predictions about what we will find if we investigate past events] about the physical universe. As such, it is always limited by human limitations. It is not possible to test every sample. Our ability to measure things has limits. Mistakes happen and bias exists. There may be a better idea that we haven’t thought of.
However, repeated testing of ideas tends to give fairly reliable results. Is matter made of atoms? All tests done so far support the idea. Democritus coined the name, but his philosophical ideas have little other connection to chemistry or physics. The fact that chemical reactions take place in consistent ratios was the first major scientific clue to the reality of atoms. For example, the airplanes need to have the right fuel to air ratio, which ultimately reflects the atomic makeup of the fuel and air. Atoms of different elements behave differently. Iron just keeps on rusting with exposure to oxygen, but many other materials, including aluminum, quickly form a thin protective outer oxide layer on the surface, preventing further change underneath. Why do airplanes made of aluminum not usually undergo a thermite reaction with exposure to air? Atoms explain how it works. We can observe interactions of individual atoms with other particles, such as by atomic force microscopy or with various patterns of particle accelerators. As already mentioned, the properties of atoms explains nuclear power. The idea works very well.
One can decide what level of skepticism to apply to things generally, but if the skepticism towards one set of claims goes along with uncritically accepting the claims from another source, there’s a problem. Of course, extreme skepticism and extreme gullibility are both problems.
Good answers. I think the reason I accept established science without too much questioning, is that it is ideally an open book, with hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world questioning the propositions put forth. It is based on observable phenomena which can be checked, and is checked. Now, I have a much lower trust of individual papers that are published, as I know a lot cannot be replicated, and while may sound promising, must be judged as to whether they hold up under scrutiny. A good example is the ivermectin topic with Covid. Early small studies showed promise, and were seized upon by the desperate and gullible, but later more controlled studies showed no benefit. Stopping at the early studies gives you a god that is a deer head on the wall. Science works, but is a constantly evolving process, which is its strength, not its weakness.
What I find interesting is that society as a whole expects knowledge and learning to grow and change over time and yet, when it comes to God the Ancients are quoted as having almost perfect knowledge. It would seem that Theology is the only field of knowledge that looks back rather than what is thought or known now. Be it writing, or the authority of individuals it seems the further back in history they are the more accurate their meaning and understanding.
