The basic idea behind science fiction is to extend known science into the unknown, then explore the impact on people. This has been true from its beginnings with Mary Shelley, Jules Verne, and H.G. Wells. But what is “known science”?

In the modern era, we rely heavily on the objective truth of science to inform us about the world. We raise hypotheses, perform experiments, and—if the results are repeatable—confirm theories. We then extend those theories into engineering. The results have been astounding, leading to an industrial age, a computer age, and an information age that have transformed the lives of humanity. With its incredible power, we have come to view science as Truth.

Yet… What about the experiments that are not repeatable? What about the outliers that don’t fit the theory? What about other dimensions of Truth?

Scientific method does not create reality; it only allows us to explore and discover the reality that already exists. Scientific theories are only models of reality and, as stated by the statistician George Box (and others), “All models are wrong.” Even something as simple as F=ma is only an approximation of reality. If you doubt that, run any physics experiment and observe how much dispersion occurs. “Oh, but the equation is still true; we just can’t accurately measure all the forces.” Exactly. All models are wrong, because any model—to be useful—is a simplification of reality. We literally cannot contain in our minds all the complexity of the real world.

Science gives us empirical averages. It gives us trends. It gives us indications of how reality works. Very useful indications on which we can build automobiles, genetic treatments, and artificial intelligence—but the devil is still, as always, in the details. (People used to say, interestingly enough, that God is in the details.) So if the details can supplant our science, then how true is science?

Doc Honour
August 2023