Unconceived Alternatives

Summary

In this video, the speaker explores Kyle Stanford's argument from unconceived alternatives, which challenges scientific realism by suggesting that our best theories may not be true due to the existence of unconsidered alternatives. The argument extends to unconceived observations, models, methods, and theoretical virtues, all of which contribute to the possibility that new, unthought-of ideas could change the course of scientific understanding. The speaker provides various examples from history and current science to demonstrate how the development of new methods and observations may drastically alter our scientific theories and their evaluation.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Argument from Unconceived Alternatives challenges scientific realism, suggesting that current theories may one day be replaced by equally valid ones that have not yet been conceived.
• 🔬 Historical shifts in scientific theory (e.g., from Newtonian mechanics to general relativity) demonstrate that past theories were replaced by alternatives that were previously unconceived.
• 🌍 Scientific theories are limited by the alternatives scientists have currently conceived. Theories that are considered true today could be replaced if new alternatives are discovered.
• 💡 Unconceived observations, like the discovery of deep-sea ecosystems, can lead to the development of new scientific theories by pointing in directions that were previously unexplored.
• 🌌 An unconceived observation is one that was not anticipated by any existing theory and requires new theoretical development to explain it.
• 🔧 Models play a crucial role in applying scientific theories to real-world situations. Theories without well-developed models are often less predictive, even if they are conceptually strong.
• 🧑‍🔬 Unconceived methods, such as blind experiments in medical and psychological research, have historically advanced science by revealing new insights through more effective experimental design.
• 📊 The development of new tools and methods of data analysis—like Bayesian statistics—can transform how scientific theories are evaluated and accepted.
• 📚 New theoretical virtues, such as simplicity and scope, may be undiscovered, which could change how we assess the truth of scientific theories.
• 🧠 The way we interpret theoretical virtues (like simplicity) can evolve, as demonstrated by new formalizations such as Kolmogorov complexity, which provides a more nuanced measure of theory simplicity.

Q & A

What is Kyle Stanford's argument from unconceived alternatives?

Stanford argues that throughout history, scientists failed to conceive of equally good alternative theories to those they accepted. Since this pattern is likely to continue, there are probably unconceived alternatives to current theories as well, so we should not believe our best scientific theories are true.

Why does the existence of unconceived alternatives challenge scientific realism?

Scientific realism claims that our best theories are approximately true. But if equally good or better alternative theories might exist that we haven’t conceived of, then we lack justification for believing that our current theories reflect the truth.

How does the phosphine discovery on Venus illustrate the problem of unconceived alternatives?

Scientists ruled out all known non-biological explanations for phosphine, leaving life as the only known producer. However, because unknown processes might also produce phosphine, we cannot conclude that life is present. This shows that unconceived possibilities can undermine theory confirmation.

What are 'unconceived observations' and why do they matter?

Unconceived observations are unexpected phenomena not predicted or explained by existing theories. Their discovery often forces new theoretical developments, indicating that current theories are incomplete and increasing the likelihood of unconceived alternatives.

How can theory-ladenness contribute to unconceived observations?

Observations are often interpreted through existing theories. If we lack the necessary theoretical tools to interpret what we see, certain observations may go unnoticed or misunderstood, increasing the likelihood of missing crucial data relevant to theory evaluation.

What role do models play in scientific theories, and how do unconceived models pose a problem?

Models translate general theoretical laws into concrete predictions. If alternative models that could better reveal a theory’s predictive power remain unconceived, our evaluation of the theory may be incomplete or misleading.

What are unconceived methods, and how do they affect scientific progress?

Unconceived methods are experimental or analytical techniques not yet invented or imagined. Since scientific conclusions depend on the methods used, new techniques—like double-blind experiments or advanced genomic tools—can radically change how theories are assessed.

How does microbial research illustrate the limits of current methods?

Many microbes cannot be cultured, microscopy cannot distinguish major domains of life, and metagenomic tools require prior sequence knowledge. These limitations suggest we may be missing entire forms of life, possibly even a 'shadow biosphere,' due to unconceived or insufficient methods.

What are unconceived theoretical virtues, and why are they significant?

Theoretical virtues are qualities that make a theory preferable (e.g., simplicity, scope, consistency). If there are virtues we haven’t conceived of or fully defined, our current judgments about which theories are best may be flawed or incomplete.

How can changes in theoretical virtues—such as intelligibility—undermine realism?

Past scientists valued visualizable, mechanistic theories, but modern science often accepts abstract or unintuitive frameworks. This shift shows that standards for evaluating theories change, suggesting our current standards may also be provisional and potentially misleading.

Why is simplicity an example of an evolving theoretical virtue?

Although simplicity has been valued for centuries, its definitions and measurements have changed—e.g., the introduction of Kolmogorov complexity in the 1960s. This indicates that even familiar virtues can be reinterpreted or replaced, altering how theories are judged.

How do these various forms of unconceived alternatives compound the problem for realism?

Unconceived theories, observations, models, methods, and virtues each independently increase the probability that our current theories are not the best or most accurate. Together, they significantly weaken the realist claim that our present theories are approximately true.