Science actually works in the opposite direction. We start with conjecture and through rational criticism, testing, etc. try and find simpler and more universal laws iteratively over time. The goal in a sense is to arrive at something like first principles.
That said, when trying to construct a model, scientists often do start with the simplest case they can produce. A known aspect of the field like a simple harmonic oscillator. They can then modify to try and generalize a model.
Do scientists sometimes refer to the universal laws they are trying to arrive at as first principles?
Could the underlying assumption that there are universal laws to be found be called a first principle?
Or does the term have a different specialized meaning?
I'm asking because the phrase appears in a book in progress I've been asked for feedback on. It's not a science book, but the author makes a comparison with science. So I wonder if a scientist or someone knowledgeable about science would trip over it. Thanks.
I think you’re asking if scientists ever believe that their universal laws are fundamental and without further cause, using the definition of first principles. The answer is no, I think
Do you think most scientists are conscious that the assumption that there are even fundamental laws to be found is just an assumption or a working hypothesis? Though as it's not testable maybe it shouldn't be called a hypothesis?
Things happen, yes? Apples fall. Hydrocarbons combust. But they, so far, have not been found to happen without following some pattern. The laws we "find" are our species's attempt to describe these patterns.
What would it mean if this assumption you describe was false? That there are no "fundamental laws" to be "found"? Does this mean things happen with no rhyme or reason? That doesn't seem to be a very useful or observably reasonable stance to take.
It may simply mean that we, as human beings, are unable to find and/or understand these laws. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that we should be capable of doing so.
But, yes, it is conceivable that, to some degree, within our representation of the world, things do happen with no rhyme or reason. Indeed, one might argue that the randomness of the quantum world is one example for this.
Assessment of the usefulness of such a stance would require a lot more thought than you have brought to the table so far, however.
And yet we can still interrogate and model the quantum world. If it was as OP was trying to push and had no "fundamental laws", then I suffered through McQuarrie for no reason.
We have uncovered and described so much of the natural world. Is it plausible that something can defy human conception? Sure. But we have not hit such an insurmountable wall yet.
I appreciate how rude and dismissive you were in your final line. Science does not move forward by accepting that we cannot know Thing. If that does not give my stance apparent use to you, then I doubt there is any conversation we could have that would have any use to me. Thank you kindly.
So scientists assume there's a pattern because it's useful in finding what seem to be patterns (but ultimately can't be proven with certainty to be universal)?
No such system can be proven with certainty to be universal. See Hume and the "Problem of Induction". Or Hawking's "Model-Dependent Realism".
Science aims for reproducibility only. Past observations don't guarantee universal laws. But science has worked out very well for us thus far so that's what we use. Any one of us is free to invent a better system!
Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true. Can I prove that things are made of atoms? No, but its probably true. And most scientists if not all will believe it to be true.
I don't think model-dependent realism is a good representation of what most scientists (or philosophers of science) think. It is actually not even what Hawking thinks. He states the position and then continues to say things which contradict it afterwards, just as he did before he ever formulated model-dependent realism.
Edit: I'm not even fully convinced that model-dependent realism is coherent.
Every model we as a species develop has stipulations, caveats, limitations. I'm really not seeing the practicality of your line of questioning. Sure, yes, we can't say with absolute certainty that anything that we've ever seen will be like anything in the future or the past (if you'll allow me to be frustratingly vague in my wording), but... We keep finding patterns, equations, descriptions that model reality with some degree of accuracy. We have no reason right now to think there will eventually be some Thing that just straight up has no laws that describes its behavior.
This feels like it's trying to somehow move in some religious direction, like how Man is flawed and cannot know Some Thing but God can or something.
Yes, all scientists are aware of that. They are also aware of the fact that all of our theories are approximations, and there is, in practice, no assumption that fundamental laws can ever be found, or that such laws even exist. All science ever does, and all it ever can do, is develop models for the reality we observe. That's all. The foundations of these models always remain open to questioning and revision.
It seems the person whose book you are reviewing had next to no understanding of what science is or what it does.
“Do you think most scientists are conscious that the assumption that there are even fundamental laws to be found is just an assumption or a working hypothesis?“
Which of these is your question? Your question makes no sense.
Are scientists conscious that -> {[the assumption that -> (there are fundamental laws to be found)] is [(an assumption) or (a working hypothesis)]}?
Are scientists -> {conscious that [(the assumption that -> “there are fundamental laws to be found”) is -> (an assumption)]} or -> a working hypothesis?
Option 1 means you’re asking if scientists are aware of the assumption that “there are fundamental laws to be found” is either an assumption or a working hypothesis. You’re not asking which of the two scientists think it is. You’re saying that it is either an assumption or a working hypothesis and you’re asking if scientists are aware that it is either an assumption or a working hypothesis.
Option two makes no sense because it’s asking if scientists are aware that the assumption “there are no fundamental laws to be found” is an assumption, or are scientists a working hypothesis.
Sorry Im taking a logic class rn. But I genuinely don’t understand your question.
As option 2 makes no sense I assumed people would interpret it as option 1, which is what I meant.
Or more simply: Are scientists conscious that 1) Science is based on assuming that [there are some universal laws to be discovered], and 2) It's just an assumption?
To answer option 1: Scientists are probably aware that the assumption that there are fundamental laws to be found is an assumption, obviously. So yes.
Your new question is different from option 1. (Edit, I misread your question sorry)
"Are scientists conscious of this -> {[Science is based on (assuming there are some universal laws to be discovered)] AND [(there are some universal laws to be discovered) -> is an assumption]}"
"[Science is based on (assuming there are some universal laws to be discovered)]"
Yes, but universal PATTERNS to be discovered would be more accurate, though its just semantics.
"[(there are some universal laws to be discovered) -> is an assumption]"
Yes, but its a pretty solid assumption that's 99.999999% probably true.
I don't want to just copy paste my comment here so I'll just say: check out my comment where I disambiguity in the question. I think the question of whether scientists "build" theories from axioms is similarly ambiguous.
Need more context to understand the sense of the phrase.
Scientists do "stand on the shoulders of giants": it'd be highly impractical to do science without accepting certain assumptions (laws of thermodynamics, schrodinger's equation, whatever..)
That's not exactly the same are working from first principles, which (as I understand it) means working from the ground up. If you assume a foundation to build upon, that's not working from first principles.
But an isolated sentence doesn't help us understand what the author was trying to say.
Why don't you share the title and author of what you're reading?
> Is this statement accurate: "Scientists build their theories out of first principles"?
It's the absolute opposite of accurate. Scientists build their theories on observational evidence and experimental evidence. They may build other theories upon those theories, but even then, they need (experimental) evidence to start to accept those theories as accurate/reliable/useful (or the vernacular for this, i.e. "true").
Even experimentation itself is not built upon first principles: experimentation has been tried and found to be sufficiently reliable. And each usage of that methodology is in itself another test of that methodology.
My hunch is the phrase "first principles" shows up way more in other realms of philosophy, mostly like Aristotle and Aquinus maybe?
Right now in culture, if I saw that phrase I'd guess the person was kinda just starting out learning. And I'd wonder fi the the person was watching youtubers from the manosphere-adjacent world, a bit? I hope I'm not being too unfair, that's just me noticing how the phrase crops up in my experience.
If the question is "do scientists build their theories up by starting with assumptions ("first principles") and then derive their consequences/predictions?", the answer is, roughly speaking, yes. With the caveat that this process of "deriving" the predictions of a theory often depends on supplemental probabilistic/statistical assumptions and points of intersection with other, well-supported scientific theories.
If the question is "do scientists believe in their theories because they start from assumptions that are self-evidently true and then work onwards to discover other true things?", the answer is no.
It's important to note, though, that no one really does this second thing all of the time, even mathematicians and logicians. There are obviously some cases where results are derived from already accepted axioms but the reasons we have to believe some axioms are often that they entail the right results. This is true for the Peano axioms, the axioms for the real numbers, the axioms of Euclidean geometry, or the axioms of ZF(C) set theory, for example. Similarly, the choices one makes between classical, intuitionistic, or paraconsistent logics will have to do with the power of those systems i.e. what they can prove.
It's a highly idealized view of science that doesn't survive contact with actual scientific history.
If scientists only built from first principles, fields like biology, geology, or medicine would barely exist. How do you deduce the double-helix structure of DNA or the symptoms of a viral infection from "first principles"? You can't. You have to go out, get dirty, run experiments, make wrong assumptions, and patch your theories together using heuristics and approximations.
Science is less about building a perfect skyscraper from a flawless foundation, and more about rebuilding a ship while we're already afloat on it (Neurath's boat).
fox-mcleod | 7 hours ago
Like a mathematics system built from axioms? No.
Science actually works in the opposite direction. We start with conjecture and through rational criticism, testing, etc. try and find simpler and more universal laws iteratively over time. The goal in a sense is to arrive at something like first principles.
That said, when trying to construct a model, scientists often do start with the simplest case they can produce. A known aspect of the field like a simple harmonic oscillator. They can then modify to try and generalize a model.
[OP] FearlessFuture8221 | 7 hours ago
Do scientists sometimes refer to the universal laws they are trying to arrive at as first principles?
Could the underlying assumption that there are universal laws to be found be called a first principle?
Or does the term have a different specialized meaning?
I'm asking because the phrase appears in a book in progress I've been asked for feedback on. It's not a science book, but the author makes a comparison with science. So I wonder if a scientist or someone knowledgeable about science would trip over it. Thanks.
Next-Natural-675 | 7 hours ago
I think you’re asking if scientists ever believe that their universal laws are fundamental and without further cause, using the definition of first principles. The answer is no, I think
[OP] FearlessFuture8221 | 6 hours ago
Do you think most scientists are conscious that the assumption that there are even fundamental laws to be found is just an assumption or a working hypothesis? Though as it's not testable maybe it shouldn't be called a hypothesis?
sdbs88 | 6 hours ago
Things happen, yes? Apples fall. Hydrocarbons combust. But they, so far, have not been found to happen without following some pattern. The laws we "find" are our species's attempt to describe these patterns.
What would it mean if this assumption you describe was false? That there are no "fundamental laws" to be "found"? Does this mean things happen with no rhyme or reason? That doesn't seem to be a very useful or observably reasonable stance to take.
EdCasaubon | 6 hours ago
It may simply mean that we, as human beings, are unable to find and/or understand these laws. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that we should be capable of doing so.
But, yes, it is conceivable that, to some degree, within our representation of the world, things do happen with no rhyme or reason. Indeed, one might argue that the randomness of the quantum world is one example for this.
Assessment of the usefulness of such a stance would require a lot more thought than you have brought to the table so far, however.
sdbs88 | 4 hours ago
And yet we can still interrogate and model the quantum world. If it was as OP was trying to push and had no "fundamental laws", then I suffered through McQuarrie for no reason.
We have uncovered and described so much of the natural world. Is it plausible that something can defy human conception? Sure. But we have not hit such an insurmountable wall yet.
I appreciate how rude and dismissive you were in your final line. Science does not move forward by accepting that we cannot know Thing. If that does not give my stance apparent use to you, then I doubt there is any conversation we could have that would have any use to me. Thank you kindly.
[OP] FearlessFuture8221 | 5 hours ago
So scientists assume there's a pattern because it's useful in finding what seem to be patterns (but ultimately can't be proven with certainty to be universal)?
Next-Natural-675 | 5 hours ago
I think so. For the most part I think a physicist will believe that there are definite patterns that nature follows.
ladz | 5 hours ago
No such system can be proven with certainty to be universal. See Hume and the "Problem of Induction". Or Hawking's "Model-Dependent Realism".
Science aims for reproducibility only. Past observations don't guarantee universal laws. But science has worked out very well for us thus far so that's what we use. Any one of us is free to invent a better system!
Next-Natural-675 | 5 hours ago
Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true. Can I prove that things are made of atoms? No, but its probably true. And most scientists if not all will believe it to be true.
ladz | 4 hours ago
We can literally *see* atoms with our microscopes. Doubting this is like doubting rain consists of drops.
Next-Natural-675 | 4 hours ago
Hume says we can't know it for sure. Which is what I thought you were trying to get across.
Themoopanator123 | 3 hours ago
I don't think model-dependent realism is a good representation of what most scientists (or philosophers of science) think. It is actually not even what Hawking thinks. He states the position and then continues to say things which contradict it afterwards, just as he did before he ever formulated model-dependent realism.
Edit: I'm not even fully convinced that model-dependent realism is coherent.
sdbs88 | 4 hours ago
Every model we as a species develop has stipulations, caveats, limitations. I'm really not seeing the practicality of your line of questioning. Sure, yes, we can't say with absolute certainty that anything that we've ever seen will be like anything in the future or the past (if you'll allow me to be frustratingly vague in my wording), but... We keep finding patterns, equations, descriptions that model reality with some degree of accuracy. We have no reason right now to think there will eventually be some Thing that just straight up has no laws that describes its behavior.
This feels like it's trying to somehow move in some religious direction, like how Man is flawed and cannot know Some Thing but God can or something.
EdCasaubon | 6 hours ago
Yes, all scientists are aware of that. They are also aware of the fact that all of our theories are approximations, and there is, in practice, no assumption that fundamental laws can ever be found, or that such laws even exist. All science ever does, and all it ever can do, is develop models for the reality we observe. That's all. The foundations of these models always remain open to questioning and revision.
It seems the person whose book you are reviewing had next to no understanding of what science is or what it does.
Next-Natural-675 | 6 hours ago
“Do you think most scientists are conscious that the assumption that there are even fundamental laws to be found is just an assumption or a working hypothesis?“
Which of these is your question? Your question makes no sense.
Option 1 means you’re asking if scientists are aware of the assumption that “there are fundamental laws to be found” is either an assumption or a working hypothesis. You’re not asking which of the two scientists think it is. You’re saying that it is either an assumption or a working hypothesis and you’re asking if scientists are aware that it is either an assumption or a working hypothesis.
Option two makes no sense because it’s asking if scientists are aware that the assumption “there are no fundamental laws to be found” is an assumption, or are scientists a working hypothesis.
Sorry Im taking a logic class rn. But I genuinely don’t understand your question.
[OP] FearlessFuture8221 | 5 hours ago
As option 2 makes no sense I assumed people would interpret it as option 1, which is what I meant.
Or more simply: Are scientists conscious that 1) Science is based on assuming that [there are some universal laws to be discovered], and 2) It's just an assumption?
Next-Natural-675 | 5 hours ago
To answer option 1: Scientists are probably aware that the assumption that there are fundamental laws to be found is an assumption, obviously. So yes.
Your new question is different from option 1. (Edit, I misread your question sorry)
"Are scientists conscious of this -> {[Science is based on (assuming there are some universal laws to be discovered)] AND [(there are some universal laws to be discovered) -> is an assumption]}"
"[Science is based on (assuming there are some universal laws to be discovered)]"
Yes, but universal PATTERNS to be discovered would be more accurate, though its just semantics.
"[(there are some universal laws to be discovered) -> is an assumption]"
Yes, but its a pretty solid assumption that's 99.999999% probably true.
EdCasaubon | 6 hours ago
This is correct.
Old_Collection4184 | 5 hours ago
Do scientists sometimes refer to the universal laws they are trying to arrive at as first principles?
Definately no.
Themoopanator123 | 3 hours ago
I don't want to just copy paste my comment here so I'll just say: check out my comment where I disambiguity in the question. I think the question of whether scientists "build" theories from axioms is similarly ambiguous.
Old_Collection4184 | 5 hours ago
Need more context to understand the sense of the phrase.
Scientists do "stand on the shoulders of giants": it'd be highly impractical to do science without accepting certain assumptions (laws of thermodynamics, schrodinger's equation, whatever..)
That's not exactly the same are working from first principles, which (as I understand it) means working from the ground up. If you assume a foundation to build upon, that's not working from first principles.
But an isolated sentence doesn't help us understand what the author was trying to say.
Why don't you share the title and author of what you're reading?
erinaceus_ | 5 hours ago
> Is this statement accurate: "Scientists build their theories out of first principles"?
It's the absolute opposite of accurate. Scientists build their theories on observational evidence and experimental evidence. They may build other theories upon those theories, but even then, they need (experimental) evidence to start to accept those theories as accurate/reliable/useful (or the vernacular for this, i.e. "true").
Even experimentation itself is not built upon first principles: experimentation has been tried and found to be sufficiently reliable. And each usage of that methodology is in itself another test of that methodology.
ErinCoach | 4 hours ago
My hunch is the phrase "first principles" shows up way more in other realms of philosophy, mostly like Aristotle and Aquinus maybe?
Right now in culture, if I saw that phrase I'd guess the person was kinda just starting out learning. And I'd wonder fi the the person was watching youtubers from the manosphere-adjacent world, a bit? I hope I'm not being too unfair, that's just me noticing how the phrase crops up in my experience.
Themoopanator123 | 3 hours ago
It's not really clear what's being asked.
If the question is "do scientists build their theories up by starting with assumptions ("first principles") and then derive their consequences/predictions?", the answer is, roughly speaking, yes. With the caveat that this process of "deriving" the predictions of a theory often depends on supplemental probabilistic/statistical assumptions and points of intersection with other, well-supported scientific theories.
If the question is "do scientists believe in their theories because they start from assumptions that are self-evidently true and then work onwards to discover other true things?", the answer is no.
It's important to note, though, that no one really does this second thing all of the time, even mathematicians and logicians. There are obviously some cases where results are derived from already accepted axioms but the reasons we have to believe some axioms are often that they entail the right results. This is true for the Peano axioms, the axioms for the real numbers, the axioms of Euclidean geometry, or the axioms of ZF(C) set theory, for example. Similarly, the choices one makes between classical, intuitionistic, or paraconsistent logics will have to do with the power of those systems i.e. what they can prove.
[OP] FearlessFuture8221 | 26 minutes ago
What's being asked is how a scientist would react to the statement in question.
Bright_Weakness1968 | 2 hours ago
It's a highly idealized view of science that doesn't survive contact with actual scientific history.
If scientists only built from first principles, fields like biology, geology, or medicine would barely exist. How do you deduce the double-helix structure of DNA or the symptoms of a viral infection from "first principles"? You can't. You have to go out, get dirty, run experiments, make wrong assumptions, and patch your theories together using heuristics and approximations.
Science is less about building a perfect skyscraper from a flawless foundation, and more about rebuilding a ship while we're already afloat on it (Neurath's boat).