The Method of Science

(written May 2004)

The modern method of science is most profound in its simplicity; in fact the beauty of this simplicity is the foundation of its profoundness. Yet is this the most optimal method available to mankind in its quest to unravel nature?

The method of science can be briefly summarised as follows:

1. There is a “reality” whose comprehension has necessitated the creation of sciences, in fact all branches of human knowledge. The “Reality” is fundamental and independent.

2. Then there is a “perceived reality”, the reality as apprehended by the observer. Perceived reality is dependent on the instrument of observation of the observer and is liable to change. In the ideal scenario, as the perfection of observation improves, the “perceived reality” better approximates “reality”, the limiting case is when the observation is perfect and the “perceived reality” is “reality”. At any stage, there is no way for the observer to directly apprehend beyond the “perceived reality”.

3. And finally there are “theories” that are proposed to explain the “reality”. A “theory” is accepted as valid if and only if it explains correctly “perceived reality”. (Thus though theories are proposed to explain “reality”, they are benchmarked against “perceived reality” since at any given time there is no direct contrivance for apprehending beyond it.) Any theory that fails this test is in error.

4. This benchmarking – checking a theory against the “perceived reality” it purports to explain – is the “experiment”, another crucial bedrock of the method of modern science.

Thus, since the yardstick - “perceived reality”- is constantly changing, it is very possible that theories, which were decided as inaccurate or erroneous, might, in time, be proved right and vice-versa. Thus, the measure of the success of a “theory” is its ability to survive improvements and upgrades in the “perceived reality”.

Newton’s ‘Universal Theory of Gravitation’ is a case that helps illuminate the above method. For more than two centuries, the theory was accepted as supreme, since it explained accurately the “perceived reality” of the time. Yet, with time, as the range and perfection of the “perceived reality” improved – the world of the atoms was discovered and extremely accurate celestial data became available – the failings in the theory were exposed. Thus two separate theories – Einstein’s theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics – replaced Newton’s theories as the de-facto standards explaining the “perceived reality”. The motion of the planets was and will remain the same, it is simply that two centuries ago our measurement of that motion was approximate, so an approximate theory was fine. Who knows, with time, as our capabilities of measurement improve further, what will happen?