F54 - Teorie senza un perché

I liked our last conversation. So, if I understood correctly, scientific theories would be such because they are open to criticism, both rational and experimental, that is, they are falsifiable and have sufficient explanatory power. Exactly. But let me underline that although falsificability is one of the fundamental criteria for the scientificity of a theory, the requirement to have sufficient explanatory power is no exception. Many theories are discarded not because they are incompatible with experimental data, but simply because they do not explain much. Could you give me an example? According to one of my very personal theories, the best way to get through a hemisphere is to throw yourself with a parachute from an altitude of exactly 3,500 meters. Immediately after having eaten four slices of any apple pie. What do you say? Is it a scientific theory? It seems to me a great stupidity. Yet mine is a theory that is definitely open to experimental criticism and that, as far as I know, no one has managed to falsify it to date. But who wants to take the trouble to submit your theory to a test? It doesn't make any sense. Well, I can't tell you whether it makes sense or not. You know, in my opinion it could also work. And why never? That's the point, I don't know. And it is precisely for this reason that no one experiments my theory. Because it does not contain explanations? Exactly. My theory makes a certain prediction, but it says nothing about the reason for the prediction. For this reason, any scientist who respects himself will discard it, judging it unworthy of further investigations. Eh, otherwise we risk wasting our precious time testing all kinds of stupidity. Yes, we have better things to do. In essence, your theory would be discarded because it does not meet a serious rational criticism. Exactly. Experimental falsificability is not enough to confer the so-called scientific theory. To deserve it, it must also be able to explain that part of reality it refers to. Unprecedented predictions of explanations are baseless theories that, rationally speaking, we can only discard. Although the predictions are correct? But for what reason should we burden our cognitive baggage with baseless predictions? Certainly they do not help us to understand reality, nor to relate to it in a more harmonious way. Baseless predictions have a name. Superstitions. Could you give me another example of a baseless pseudoscientific theory? I have a beautiful example for you. There is a theory that states that all the emeralds on Earth are green. That is, they are green until January 1, 2087. And after that date, they will all turn red. It seems unsustainable to me. Why? Well, it's obviously false. No, you can't say that. All the experimental data available to us today, and I assure you that they are abundant, unmistakably confirm the validity of this theory. All the emeralds on Earth are unequivocally green, to the contrary. Yes, but they are also green. You are right. There are two competing theories. One that states that emeralds are green, and the other that they are green. Both are confirmed exactly by the same experimental data. But the theory of green emeralds cannot be true. Well, no theory is ever true. I mean, it's definitely false. No, you can't say that. Not yet, at least. Logically, the theory could only be falsified in 2087. In the meantime, what do we do? Do we teach it in schools as an alternative theory? It would be irresponsible. Why? Because what it says is not at all plausible. Why wouldn't it be? Well, I've never seen an emerald change color all of a sudden, and for whatever reason I don't see how all the emeralds on Earth could do it in the same instant. And then, why in 2087 and not in 2088? No, I really don't know the reasons to believe this crazy theory. This is the point. There are no reasons. Although it is compatible with the data of our experience of the real, the theory does not explain anything about its predictions, which, among other things, would constitute an inexplicable and dramatic anomaly compared to our knowledge of the physics of crystals, and more generally of physics as such. A scientific theory that is respected must always start from explanations and from these derive its predictions. In other words, predictions must always follow explanations. Otherwise, anyone could affirm anything. Exactly. Unfortunately, since our childhood we have been bombarded with messages about reality that are everywhere comparable to superstitions, that is, to theories totally devoid of explanatory power. These pseudo-theories, precisely because they are hardly falsifiable under the experimental profile, end up conditioning our lives and darkening our ability to explore the critical reality. Yet, since the first years of our lives, we humans have been led to express our critical sense towards everything we still don't know and want to understand. It is perhaps not typical of children to assist adults with a simple but decisive question. Why?