Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.
Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.
Post History
Science tends to discover knowledge by performing experiments in the lab. For example, suppose we have a hypothesis that a volume V of atmospheric air, when compressed quickly to a certain ratio, ...
#1: Initial revision
by
matthewsnyderâ€
·
2024-03-24T04:36:47Z (8 months ago)
How does science generalize local results to global scale?
Science tends to discover knowledge by performing experiments in the lab. For example, suppose we have a hypothesis that a volume `V` of atmospheric air, when compressed quickly to a certain ratio, will heat up by a temperature difference `dT1`. The experiment is straightforward, and let's say it succeeds with a small margin of error. It is tempting to take this evidence, go off and design an engine that relies on a temperature differential of `dT1`. But I have only tested the air right inside my lab. What if the air in my lab was somehow unique, and actually all the air in most other places has a differential of `dT2`, under which my engine will not work? When we claim the *local* experiment I do in the lab is relevant to the *global* situation in the Universe, we seem to make a leap. Is this leap actually justified by some scientific logic? Or is it outside the scope of scientific research, and is informally assumed by the "consumer" of scientific findings? Note: I am not asking only about the isotropy of the laws of nature. It could be that the laws of nature are the same everywhere, just the subjects of those laws happen to be different.