Jump to content
Science Forums

Science; reality vs correlation


HydrogenBond

Recommended Posts

Science to me is almost like religion in the sense that both are seeking the truth. In the case of science, it is seeking the truth in physical reality. If this is the primary directive of science, I asked myself the question. does correlation, although very useful to the specialists, always leads to the truth?. The analogy that I came up with, to show the contrast between correlation and truth is connected to looking at a photograph. We live in a world of specialists. This is analogous to shining a beam of light on the big picture to illuminate one part of the picture. This allows us to s focus, so we can look at that aspect in high detail.

 

As a way of example, under our narrow beam of light,we see a female who appears to be a dancer. This is deduced by her slim but athletic body as well as the dance pose she is assuming. As we zoom in closer, we notice that she is wearing sweats. We also notice her face looks in anguish. As we zone in even closer we notice the tags on her sweats say K-mart. Based on all this data one might conclude that this is the piciture of a struggling female dancer. The anquish in her face might be due to her dream slipping away. This is a good correlation of the data, based on our field of vision. Others may be possible.

 

Next we reverse the angle of the light and make it wider angle to see more of the picture. As the angle widens we notice that she is not alone. There are other dancers also in sweats. From this extended vision, the story changes, somewhat. Maybe it is a poor group of struggling dancers, with our featured gal getting discouraged and ready to give up.

 

Someone who specialized in a different part of the picture and had a different initial detailed focused may have picked one of the dancers that had designer labels on her sweats. From the longer view the first team can't see this speciality data and sticks to their logical extrapolation. The second team now says this isn't a dance group, this is dance try-out, with the first dancer failing and ready to get the boot. The controversy begins since they both appear to correlate their data focus in the context of the slighty bigger picuture.

 

Next we widen the angle even further to include the entire picuture. What we notice is that they are not practicing in some two-bit place but on the stage of a major dance theatre. Also the anquish on the female dancer's face is actually due to her trainer pusher her so hard. She is the center of his attention making her not a struggling dancer but the prima dancer.

 

This is the state of specialization and correlation. Specialization creates a narrow focus that allows one to see a lot of detail, but by virtue of its narrow focus, it can make one lose track of the forest because of the trees. The correlation may be perfect in the smaller area, but may or may not extrapolate well into the bigger picture of things. The result is that one can get a excellent correlation of highly detailed data that can have little to do with the global reality of the situation.

 

Picture the situation of a generalist seeing the big picuture but because they are far away they are unable to see all the details. They propose that this is a picuture of a prima dancer working with her dance team, being pushed by her trainer. The team from the first specialty focus will think he is nuts. "Einstein here, can't even see she has K-mart sweats nor can he see she all alone or with a couple of other dancers.

 

The difference in this example is between the generalist and the specialist. The generalist has a wider field of vision but can't see all the details very well. The specialists can see the details but because their field of vision is often narrow they correlate the special details in a way that can fit into their narrow specialty focus. To get at the truth you need both. The problem is there are not enough generalists to sway the direction of the specialist. The result for science is too much narrow angle correlation and not enough wide angle correlation.

 

Picuture is there was balance in science. With enough generalists insisting this is a major dance group and the lady in anguish is the prima dancer, the specialists would have to look at their specialty data again to place it in a context, that doesn't initially seem to compute using its narrow angle of vision. But because of the consensus, they go along. What this does is open up whole new ways of looking at the data. "Maybe we were right but just a little out of context". She retained her simple sweats to connected her to her past struggles. They are like lucky charm to her. She is still very raw, which is why she and everyone expects so much of her. In the context of the bigger picuture, new doors open for the same data. If they had extrapolated too deep from their original correlation they would have left reality. They but now the larger context they are given more room to extrapolate more of the details of reality. This details then offers more insight into the overall dynamics of the big picuture that the generalist may not have been able to see.

 

Science education needs to establish two parallel paths. One for those so inclined to be specialists and one for a new generation of generalists. Only this balance of approach can lead to the truth in nature. If science becomes top heavy with too much of either, truth will be compromised in favor of correlation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science to me is almost like religion in the sense that both are seeking the truth. In the case of science, it is seeking the truth in physical reality. If this is the primary directive of science, I asked myself the question. does correlation, although very useful to the specialists, always leads to the truth?. The analogy that I came up with, to show the contrast between correlation and truth is connected to looking at a photograph. We live in a world of specialists. This is analogous to shining a beam of light on the big picture to illuminate one part of the picture. This allows us to s focus, so we can look at that aspect in high detail.

 

I used to think more like this, but I think that there are greater differences between science and religion than would appear or feel evident. What I think they both share are feelings of curiosity, wonder, and knowledge of the unknown. But the methods used to arrive at the conclusions of knowledge are quite different. In science, the Truth may not be attainable, but it is increasingly knowable in a human fashion. In religion, the Truth may not be attainable, because it is increasingly impossible to know in a human fashion. (Call that the divinity factor.) These approaches appear similar but are quite divergent in what they discover, IMO.

 

To better understand reality, I believe it is necessary to have both generalist and specialist knowledge. This seems impossible, and probably is to a large degree, but scientific knowledge increasingly intersects and networks with other areas within itself, as knowledge of one thing illuminates the processes and understandings of another. It is a lifelong pursuit. We get nearer to some goals, but further away from others. It is necessary, then, to pick which goals are most important and accomplishable. That's the dilemma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actual examples would be great. Do generalists really get a better picture? What about if you have a team of specialists, each with a slightly different area of focus, each overlapping his "neighbours". This is more like what the real world is like, with new research that ends up requiring a synthesis of many scientific disciplines before the full picture comes out. Not neccessarily a need for generalists so much as communication between specialists, in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...