FREE ESSAY ON SCIENCE: FACT OR FICTION

SCIENCE: FACT OR FICTION

The late 19th and 20th centuries have seen advances in technology and scientific
understanding the likes of which have not been seen before in such a short amount of time
in known Human history. In the last hundred and fifty years science has advanced so much
that one would barely recognize the lifestyle of Humans before all these technological
wonders. In fact, if the scientists and thinkers of pre-industrial society had had a
glimpse of the technology available to the average early 21st century man they would
probably surely think some sort of sorcery was involved and would not believe for one
moment that all these technological innovations were based on concepts of the governing
laws of the universe that have applied all through mankind's history. In fact, modern
science looks pretty solid when one examines all of its wondrous creations and the fact
that new ones keep coming out daily. For instance, it would appear that modern science
has correctly solved the understanding of concepts and principles which govern how
electricity flows in a circuit. After all, computers, hair dryers, TV's and other such
electronic devices use this scientific understanding to function properly and in turn
most people use such devices every day, thus is this science proven every time such a
device is used successfully? It is easy to classify such scientific understanding as fact
when devices built upon the science work and work very dependably at that. However is
this science fact as would appear, or is merely conjecture based upon an observable
phenomenon? Perhaps something entirely different happens when we throw the switch on a
light bulb and it illuminates than what science says happens. Even though the light bulb
lights up every time, that does not necessarily mean that the scientific understanding of
how the light bulb works is true.
Take for instance the scientific principles of projectile motion. In a simplified form,
current physics explains that projectile motion is composed of two components. A y
component which describes the objects path in a vertical direction and the x component
which describes the object's motion in relation to a horizontal direction. This
explanation show that projectiles travel in an arc and its has been proven countless
times through experiment upon experiment since its original conception. However, the
modern principles of projectile motion is not how scientists have always explained the
phenomenon. In fact, the theory proposed by medieval scientists in drastically different
from what is now accepted. This scientists of yesterday tried to explain projectile
motion from what they observed and the most likely example of projectile motion that a
medieval scientist would have seen would be a catapult or some other similar device. When
someone on the ground observes such a device in action it is hard to see that the object
moves in an arc because the object is usually observed from the back (hopefully not the
front) rather than from the side. Scientists would observed that object appeared to move
up at a fairly constant rate then go smashing into the ground some distance later. Thus,
the theory that they adopted to explain this motion was that an object had a certain
amount of energy when it was thrown. This energy, which they called impetus caused the
object to go up in a straight line at whatever angle it was fired at and once the object
reached its maximum height, it used all of its impetus and fell straight down in a
vertical line to the ground. This theory of projectile motion existed for some time and
it was not until scientists such as Galileo started conducting sound scientific
experiments that the modern ideas of projectile motion were formed.
Thus it is evident that even if a device (the catapult in the above example) harnesses
some phenomenon, the explanation for the phenomenon is not necessarily true just because
the device works. This example instead shows what science really is. Science is an
attempt by Humans to explain the world around us. When something is observed, a scientist
begins to propose ideas as to why something is happening the way it is. The scientist
uses all the current scientific theories to support his new idea and also uses
experimentation to test the new idea. Over time through experimentation the idea is
refined and if it appears to be sound then it is accepted as theory. However, in the
future a new breakthrough may come about which renders this old theory obsolete and
scientists at the time of the discovery will realize that the previous theory that was
accepted as truth was completely wrong. Perhaps many theories widely believed today will
become obsolete upon new discoveries in the future and future scientists will dismiss
ideas many modern scientists hold as truths just as modern scientists easily dismiss the
medieval idea of impetus. Thus the question arises once again of whether science is fact
or plausible fiction. 
Science is fact, however it is a different kind of fact than that of absolute truth.
Science is best defined as scientific fact. Scientific fact is a generally accepted
explanation of reality and it is open at all times to inquiry. This idea of a scientific
fact is definitely not an absolute fact, as absolute truths exist only in the realm of
mathematics. Rather, facts in the context of science are explanations which seem to
explain a phenomenon and which hold in line with other accepted scientific facts.
Furthermore, there are varying degrees of scientific fact. For instance, theories in
paleontology and sub atomic theory are much more prone to change over time with further
scientific discovery than the concepts of Newtonian physics which have been unchallenged
for hundreds of years. Therefore it is clear that as scientific fact exists for longer
and longer periods of time without being disproved and that new theories are built upon
the original theory that also appear to be valid, then that scientific fact approaches
closer to absolute fact than theories which are newly formed. However, it is core to
science being science that no theory can every be 100% absolute truth. Only by constantly
questioning a scientific idea and searching for a better explanation is progress made and
hence if one began accepting scientific facts as absolute facts, progress would cease. 
Thus science can be explained in terms of multiple scientific facts. However if these
scientific facts can be disproved at any time, how are they any different than convincing
fiction? Scientific fact as stated above attempts to approach absolute truth but can
never actually be absolutely true, however as ideas are constantly improved upon they
become closer and closer to this untouchable absolute truth. Sound scientific facts can
be reproduced by any scientist and are given more plausibility each time they are
successfully reproduced. This is how science is more fact in the sense of an absolute
fact rather than being fiction. If a scientific theory apparently explains a phenomenon,
can be reproduced multiple times and it agrees with other scientific facts then it is
more likely truth than just a convincing fiction. Convincing fiction on the other hand is
something that is false at its core, but appears to be true via various convincing
arguments. Science does not fall under this category because science is developed using
methods such as the scientific method that require a scientist to be very thorough and
hence ideas which appear to be true, but which are in reality fiction, will be weeded out
through experimentation. There is somewhat of a gray area between this convincing fiction
and scientific fact because of the idea of various degrees of scientific fact as
mentioned above, however good science which follows the scientific method is
differentiated from the plausible fiction simply from the fact that it is reproducible
and that it agrees with other widely accepted ideas. Science is constantly built upon
itself and if one was to classify all science as convincing fiction then that would mean
that all science is inherently false, instead the idea of science as scientific fact
allows for the idea that science is true which allows for further scientific advancement
because one can rely on previous scientific ideas and treat them as fact to build new
theories which if also are scientifically proven will further validate the original
theory. 
Thus scientific ideas which are developed through the appropriate means of scientific
method and which are reproduced by other scientists can be accepted as fact in the
context of science. This scientific fact is seen as being inherently true due to the fact
that it is built upon former scientific ideas that have been time tested and which
approach as close to absolute truth as possible. Although a new piece of information can
come to light that totally disproves a theory, the likelihood of disproving most core
theories (ie. gravity) is relatively slim due to the fact that ideas that have been built
upon the core theory have also been scientifically proven and accepted as scientific
fact. Therefore core science is much more fact than fiction as it is proven via extensive
experimentation and the newer more controversial theories are also more fact as they are
built upon the core theories which are close to being absolute truth.