Introduction
Fictionism
Basics
Definition of fictionism
Fictionism is the claim that concepts used in scientific theories are fictions which, while they don’t represent absolute truth, are useful in science.
Simple examples: centrifugal “force” and “point mass”
While centripetal force is a real force, centrifugal force is a fictitious force we use to help us understand circular motion. Another example is that of a “point mass”. Real objects, with very few exceptions, have extension in space and occupy more than just a single point in space. Never the less, it greatly simplifies calculations and does not significantly change the result to assume that the object is a point mass, so this fiction is often adopted in practice and in theory.
How fictions relate to science
A fiction is an idea postulated to support a scientific theory. Scientific theories are constructed to help explain, predict and control phenomena. A fiction may take the form of a force, like centrifugal force, but, as we will see later it often takes the form of a postulated substance like phlogiston or caloric.
Fictions are also known as psychological, imaginative or hypothetical constructs. They are constructed to “fill a gap in a theory”, i.e. to explain something the theory does not otherwise explain. Fictions are abstractions: we perceive phenomena, which we can explain, predict and control with our belief system; but there may be other, perhaps closely related phenomena, that our belief system cannot explain. For the sake of closure we postulate the ideas we need to “complete” our system so it can explain the entire range or phenomena we might feel we need to be able to influence.
Theories[i] are also considered to be constructs.
Benefits of using fictions
Fictions help science evolve. Fictions are set up as targets of criticism. Fictions are “set up” as the current paradigm used to explain reality. Until a better paradigm is constructed, they serve as a standard of knowledge. In carrying out experiments designed under the current paradigm and its’ set of fictions, the experiments contribute to the veracity of the theory if the theory makes accurate predictions; but if the experiments have a result that does not match the predictions of the theory, this presents a problem. In this case, the theory has been proven to be incorrect. Usually the theory is not abandoned immediately. Often, the theory will be altered slightly so that theoretical prediction come in line with experimental results. As more and more of these “kludges” accumulate, it becomes more evident that there is something fundamentally wrong with the theory, and fundamental assumptions, such as the axioms of the theory, are examined and may be replaced by others. By doing this the theory is given a new foundation and effectively becomes a new and different theory, though the old and new theories will have much in common because both are meant to explain, predict and control the same phenomena. In this way fictions, as parts of a theory, are used as stepping stones to the next, improved set of fictions or theory which helps us explain, predict and control nature.
Body
Two legs of science
Science can be thought of as standing on two “legs”: abstract theory and observation of the physical world.
Theories
Theories are, as previously noted, formal languages. They are abstractions which serve to provide explanations to us of how the physical world works. Mathematical theories allow us to make measurable predictions of what will happen in the theory under a given set of conditions. If such a theory models the real world accurately, then the prediction in the theory should be an accurate prediction of what will happen in reality. A theory is an abstraction. To understand this, you might think of a theory as being like a map, say of the state of California. Like a map; a theory models the essential aspects of what it represents, but excludes non-essential details. For instance, a map may show the highways in California, but it may not show each house in each town.
An example of a non-essential detail the map must leave out follows: If the map itself were spread out on the ground in the school parking lot, then to be 100% accurate, the map would have to have a miniature copy of itself on the spot that maps the school parking lot. This would then require an infinite regress, because the map would have a copy of itself, and that copy would, in turn, have to have a smaller copy, and so on, ad infinitum. This would create an infinite number of smaller and smaller maps of California one contained within another. Eventually one of the copies would be smaller than the smallest possible particle, like an electron, which is impossible.
The point is that a theory, like a map, is an abstraction that leaves out non-essential details. How do we determine what is non-essential? I suspect that we want our theories to provide us with the ability to control our circumstances so we can promote our well-being. In that case, details that don’t serve this purpose would then be considered to be non-essential. Another name for a scientific theory is a model.
The creation of a theory starts with a hypothesis. A mathematical theory may then be developed. This theory consists of a formal language. This formal language is a formal system with an interpretation. A formal system is also known as a formal calculus or a formal theory[ii]. A formal language consists of the collection of all well-formed formulas in that language, i.e. it is formed according to the grammatical rules of the language. Another, equivalent way of looking at a formal language is the following: start with a set of axioms and rules of inference.
Mathematical theories
There are an infinite number of theories possible. Which theory is best of the competing theories available to us at a particular point in time? We test the theories to determine this.
Because the theories are mathematical, we can test the theories logically for internal consistency
The predictions of two different theories will differ in numerical accuracy, which gives us a precise method of comparison, allowing us to determine which theory is more accurate
Observations
In addition to being internally consistent, are judged by how accurately they represent reality
We use the experimental method for this
Examples of fictions in the history of science
Aristotle’s idea of falling bodies
Fiction: objects have an intrinsic “desire” to “seek their level”, which results in their falling.
Heavier objects properly “want” to be lower than lighter objects
This is logically inconsistent
Aristotle’s idea that to maintain motion a force must be continually applied
Newton countered with the first law of motion (inertia)
Friction is a force which slows a body down unless a counter-force is applied
Phlogiston
Assumed to be a substance contained in combustible material
Consumed in combustion, so combustible material becomes lighter after burning
Explained, to a degree, what was observed, but later it was discovered that what is consumed in combustion is oxygen
Caloric
Heat substance
When two objects at different temperatures are near each other, caloric is transferred from the hot one to the cold one.
Modern theory attributes heat to Brownian motion of molecules.
Coriolis effect
Use merry-go-round example
Imagine a ball thrown from the center of a moving merry-go-round to the periphery of the merry-go-round
To an observer on the merry-go-round, it appears as if the ball takes a curved path
To an observer not on the merry-go-round, it appears as if the ball goes in a straight line.
Who is right?
A similar effect makes air currents traveling from the North Pole towards the Equator, the wind appears to take a curved path.
Luminiferous ether
When Newton’s corpuscular theory of light was replaced by Huygens’s wave theory or light, a medium for the waves to propagate through in empty space was required
Wave theory improved on corpuscular theory
Simpler because different colors are just different frequencies of wave motions, but the corpuscular theory required a different type of corpuscle for each color
Explained new phenomena: interference patterns
Ether is a weightless substance acting as a medium for the propagation of light waves
Does it move with the containing structure or not?
Simultaneity
Light beam intercepted by observer on source train vs. by observer not on source train
Because they arrive at different observers at different times, it appears that simultaneity cannot be maintained, but they both see the same light source
Gravity as “force at a distance”
Centrifugal force as simulated gravity
Field used to explain force at a distance
Elevator in free fall experiment
Elevator with rockets experiment
Einstein showed that gravity is “really” a warping of “empty” space
Newton’s assumption that space and time are constant was a fiction
Einstein showed that time slows down under certain conditions
Einstein showed that space shrinks under certain conditions
Atoms may be a fictions
Atom has never been actually observed, only inferred
Brownian motion
We infer the molecular motion that we can’t see from the pollen motion we can see
There may be a better explanation that we will discover in time
Nature of atom may be different than we theorize, but if the theory of the atom is not correct, the theory that replaces it will have to correspond to the observed facts
Revolutions in science
New paradigms as models of nature (theories)
Often when these fictions are replaced it involves a radical change in science
Old theory runs into problems which require “patching” of the theory. This often results in the postulation of new fictions
The new theory may require the postulation of new fictions, but the resulting theory is simpler than the old theory in the sense that, in total, it requires fewer fictions than the old theory it replaces
Science subject to improvement through revolutions
Some play by the currently accepted rules of science. Thomas Kuhn calls these “puzzle solvers”. They accept the current assumptions (axioms) that theories are based upon
Some question the rules and axioms and try to find alternative sets of axioms upon which to base their new theories
If the new theory explains more phenomena as the old theory and/or the same phenomena more accurately than the old theory, then it is a superior theory.
Question: Does science accurately represent the world?
Conclusion
Science useful
For competition
For survival
For discovering truth
Science designed for self improvement
Science admits of testing
Falsifiability
Theories must be internally consistent
Experimentation
The “proper authority” in science is reality
We measure theories against reality
Our theories are successive approximations to the truth
Science serves humanity as a tool or as a work of art
As a work of art, the creation of science spans centuries and is an on-going concern that may never end. Science is beautiful in its self-consistency and explanatory power
Improvements in theories provide better control
The resulting improved control helps us promote our well being
Incompleteness guarantees there will always be another, “bigger” theory
[i] THEORY: rigorously, a formal language, together with its’ axioms and rules of inference. Such a system generates a set of truths, the theorems, but it cannot itself refer to the truth of its’ own sentences. (“The Harper Collins Dictionary of Mathematics” by E. J. Borowski & J. M. Borwein. © 1991 E. J. Borowski and J. M. Borwein. Additional text © HarperCollinsPublishers, Inc.)
[ii] FORMAL CALCULUS, FORMAL SYSTEM OR FORMAL THEORY: n. (logic) an UNINTERPRETED symbolic system, often including NON-LOGICAL AXIOMS, of which the syntax is precisely defined, and on which a relation of DEDUCIBILITY is defined in purely syntactic terms. A LOGICSTIC SYSTEM. Compare FORMAL LANGUAGE. . (“The Harper Collins Dictionary of Mathematics” by E. J. Borowski & J. M. Borwein. © 1991 E. J. Borowski and J. M. Borwein. Additional text © HarperCollinsPublishers, Inc.)