Letter: `Laws' of science

David Edge Editor
Thursday 15 July 1999 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: David Packham speaks true. As one FRS recently told me: "I have long taken the view that all our theories, including new ones, are wrong; it is merely that we do not yet know how or by how much."

Lewis Wolpert ("The sociologists of science should shut up", 2 July) says sociologists claim that science is "little more" than a social construct, yet he admits that "science is obviously a social process"; the resolution of controversies, the acceptance of "more evidence and better theories" and the establishment and maintenance of consensus all fall under that rubric.

Sociologists pay careful attention to the (social) processes of classification and the interpretation of evidence, and their emphasis on the central role of instrumentation and experimental data in the evolution of scientific beliefs signals at least one clear way in which they take science to be different from any other beliefs. But even well-established scientific orthodoxy can be challenged. A robust "social construct" is the nearest we can ever get to a useful grasp of the (always hidden) "laws of nature". What's the alternative?

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in