My Ph.D. supervisor was once an organizer of a course named “Natural science and humanity studies”. The purpose of this course was to provide undergraduates in the college of natural sciences with humanities perspectives, followed by rich discussions.
I attended the class sometimes as an observer when the topic of the lecture seemed interesting to me. One day, a famous question of “Is science an invention or a discovery?” was a topic for discussion. Although I didn’t participate in the discussion, my stance was clear.
Science is an invention
I support the view that science is an act of creating a predictable and comprehensible model to explain observed phenomena in nature. In this way, it is clear that science is an invention. For instance, I used coupled oscillator models called the Kuramoto model to explain phenomena observed when people clap their hands or sing in rounds in two of my papers [1,2]. However, it does not mean that humans are coupled oscillators. We chose to use the Kuramoto model because it is useful to explain phenomena in these behaviors, and it is simple enough. This perspective is especially important for statistical physicists studying complex systems. A model is a theoretical framework that reflects some aspect of nature, not an exact copy of it. We can use traditional models studied in physics to explain how people’s opinions change in a society. Nonetheless, it does not mean that people’s opinions are electrons.
Example of atomic models
Even useful models can be replaced by other models. This process of scientific progress inherently strengthens the idea that science is an invention rather than a discovery. If science is a discovery, how can it be replaced? In the history of atomic models, many models were introduced and replaced by more accurate models. For example, Thomson suggested that atoms have a structure in which protons and electrons are uniformly distributed across the atoms [3]. However, this model cannot explain what was observed in Rutherford’s experiment and was replaced by Rutherford’s atomic model. It is obvious that Thomson’s atomic model cannot be discovered because atoms do not look like that. However, that does not make Thomson’s model far from science. In fact, it shows how the progress of science happens.
Gravity exists as a concept
Everyone knows what a circle is, but not everyone realizes that circles only exist in our minds. We haven’t seen circles in our lives, as even the most circular things in the world have imperfections (even pizzas!). A circle is just a tool that helps us to understand nature. Similarly, Newton invented a unifying framework called gravity that can explain the motion of a falling apple and the moon altogether. However, there is a big difference between “gravity exists” and “if we assume a concept of gravity, we can explain celestial dynamics”. We are just fortunate enough that if we assume that there is something called gravity, we can surprisingly predict their behaviors. Even Newtonian gravity was later reformulated by Einstein’s general relativity. Therefore, I would like to say gravity is a concept. Gravity is just one interpretation that helps us to understand the universe, which can be falsified when it contradicts observed phenomena.
Final remarks
In ancient Greece, Plato argued that the real world is just a reflection of ideas, and a philosopher’s quest is to discover them. In this perspective, science is a discovery. On the other hand, Nietzsche denied the existence of truth by saying “There are no facts, just interpretations,” which supports the idea that science is an invention.
As I argued that science is an invention rather than a discovery and models are interpretations of nature, I prefer the perspective of Nietzsche. However, since there is no absolute truth, this post itself should also be falsifiable.
References
- Hae Seong Lee, Beom Jun Kim, and Hye Jin Park, “Stability of twisted states in power-law-coupled Kuramoto oscillators on a circle with and without time delay”, Phys. Rev. E 109, 064203 (2024).
- Hae Seong Lee, Jong Il Park, and Beom Jun Kim, “Modified Kuramoto model with inverse-square law coupling and spatial time delay”, Physica A 582, 126263 (2021).
- Plum Pudding Model