God: The Failed Hypothesis Read Online Free PDF Page B

contrast to revelations from God, which should be true unconditionally and not subject to revi-sion. Furthermore, the elements of scientific models, especially at the deepest level of quantum phenomena, need not correspond precisely to the elements of whatever “true reality” is out there beyond the signals we receive with our senses and instruments.
    We can never know when some new model will come along that surpasses the old one. We regard such a happening as the welcome progress of science rather than some disastrous revolution that tears down the whole prior edifice, rendering it worthless.
    For example, despite a common misunderstanding, the models of Newtonian mechanics were hardly rendered useless by the twin twentieth-century developments of relativity and quantum mechanics. Newtonian physics continue to find major application in contemporary science and technology. It is still what most students learn in physics classes and what most engineers and others use when they apply physics in their professions.
    Perhaps quarks and electrons are not real, although they are part of the highly successful standard model of particle physics. We cannot say. But we can say, with high likelihood, that some of the elements of older models, such as the ether, are not part of the real world. And, while we cannot prove that every variety of god or spirit does not exist in a world beyond the senses, we have no more rational basis for including them than we have for assuming that the sun is a god driving a chariot across the sky. Furthermore, we can proceed to put our models to practical use without ever settling any metaphysical questions. Metaphysics has surprisingly little use and would not even be worth discussing if we did not have this great desire to understand ultimate reality as best as we can.
    The ingredients of scientific models are not limited to those supported by direct observation. For example, the standard model of elementary particles and forces contains objects such as
quarks,
the presumed constituents of atomic nuclei, which have never been seen as free particles. In fact, the theory in its current form requires that they
not
be free. The observation of a free quark would falsify that aspect of the standard model, although nicely confirm the quark idea itself.
    Indeed, the development of models in physics is often motivated by considerations of logical and mathematical beauty, such as symmetry principles. But they still must be tested against observations.
    Astronomical models include black holes, which can only be observed indirectly. Cosmological models include dark matter and dark energy, which remain unidentified at this writing but are inferred from the data. The models currently used in modern physics, astronomy, and cosmology are solidly grounded on direct observations and have survived the most intensive empirical testing. By virtue of this success, they can be used to make inferences that are surely superior to speculations simply pulled out of thin air.
    Physicists generally speak as if the unobserved elements of their models, such as quarks, are “real” particles. However, this is a metaphysical assumption that they have no way of verifying and, indeed, have no real need (or desire) to do so. The models of physics and their unobserved elements are human inventions and represent the best we can do in describing objective reality.
    When a model successfully describes a wide range of observations, we can be confident that the elements of those models have something to do with whatever reality is out there, but less confident that they constitute reality itself.
    On the other hand, if a model does not work there is no basis to conclude that any unique element of that model is still part of reality. An example is the electromagnetic ether, which was discussed earlier.
    Having read this, please do not assume that the doctrine of
postmodernism
is being promoted here. Science is decidedly not just another