When can we say something is fully understood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deepak K Kapur
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of understanding in science, specifically questioning when something can be considered fully understood, using the preparation of common salt (NaCl) as a focal point. Participants explore theoretical, practical, and philosophical dimensions of understanding in physics and science more broadly.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that NaCl cannot be considered fully understood due to unresolved questions about the underlying processes, such as electron transfer and the role of virtual particles.
  • Others suggest that the level of understanding required depends on the context, such as the accuracy or error margin needed for practical applications.
  • A viewpoint is presented that science is an ongoing process, and full understanding may never be achieved, which is seen as a positive aspect that ensures continued inquiry and employment in the field.
  • Some participants express a philosophical perspective, questioning whether understanding is subjective and dependent on individual viewpoints.
  • A participant mentions that while models can provide predictions, they do not guarantee correctness, as scientific understanding evolves over time.
  • There is a suggestion that the primary focus of physics is to explain how phenomena occur within a model, rather than to answer fundamental "why" questions.
  • A later reply introduces the idea of "grokking," or deeply understanding a concept, as a potential aspiration in the discussion of understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not agree on when something can be considered fully understood, with multiple competing views presented. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nature and limits of scientific understanding.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in current models and the evolving nature of scientific inquiry, indicating that many questions remain open and that understanding is contingent on context and perspective.

Deepak K Kapur
Messages
164
Reaction score
5
My friend told me that the process of common salt preparation is fully understood...

I asked him how come there's a loss and gain of electrons in this process..

He told me because of attraction and repulsion.

I asked him how does attraction and repulsion take place between charged particles...

He told me that is because of exchange of virtual particles.

I again asked him what is the reason that virtual particles come into play when two charged particles approach each other...

He said its a given.

So, how can we say that NaCl is fully understood??

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Deepak K Kapur said:
how can we say that NaCl is fully understood??

We can't.
 
A scientist would say never, but as an engineer I'd say it depends on your required accuracy/error margin.
 
'Never'!

Isn't this like being lost in a desert?

. ..depressing and fruitless...
 
Deepak K Kapur said:
'Never'!

Isn't this like being lost in a desert?

. ..depressing and fruitless...

You sound like Woody Allen in most of his movies :biggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds, BillTre, davenn and 1 other person
Deepak K Kapur said:
'Never'!

Isn't this like being lost in a desert?

. ..depressing and fruitless...

See Russ's answer above. You don't need full understanding of something in order to make progress in working with it.

If someone throws a rock at my head, I don't need to understand the full physics of ballistic trajectories and air resistance. I can get by just fine with an approximation - moving my head out of the way fast enough so as not to get hit.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cnh1995
Choppy said:
See Russ's answer above. You don't need full understanding of something in order to make progress in working with it.

If someone throws a rock at my head, I don't need to understand the full physics of ballistic trajectories and air resistance. I can get by just fine with an approximation - moving my head out of the way fast enough so as not to get hit.

Not arguing, just discussing..

So, is this being...

1. Positive

2. Practical

3. Just a defence mechanism because we want to live and progress at any cost.

And...

How to give preference to any of the scenarios above?

Does everything just boil down to a particular VIEW POINT??
 
Deepak K Kapur said:
Does everything just boil down to a particular VIEW POINT??

Deepak, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
:wink:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix and russ_watters
Deepak K Kapur said:
'Never'!

Isn't this like being lost in a desert?

. ..depressing and fruitless...
No, actually what it means is that scientists will always have jobs because science will never be finished. And that's ok - even if science were to be declared finished, no one scientist would be expecting to be the guy/gal who finished it anyway. So it doesn't change anything about their perspective.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
No, actually what it means is that scientists will always have jobs because science will never be finished. And that's ok - even if science were to be declared finished, no one scientist would be expecting to be the guy/gal who finished it anyway. So it doesn't change anything about their perspective.

What about striking at something that has always been in existence with all its features/properties...

So, no more jobs!
 
  • #11
Deepak K Kapur said:
He told me that is because of exchange of virtual particles.
It is a possible model, but a bad one for various theoretical reasons. Describing it with fields works much better.
Anyway, physics cannot answer "why" questions on a fundamental level. We could live in a universe with different laws of physics, there is no particular reason why the laws should be exactly as they are.

There are so many open questions in science, and usually answering one leads to several new ones, so I don't think science will be "done" in the foreseeable future.
 
  • #12
The primary focus of physics is to answer the question of how something happens which is done within the framework of a model or concept. We "fully understand" something if the result found.is predicted from logical reasoning based on our model or concept. However fully understanding is not imply correctness as models or concepts can change. Approaching the 20th century there was a feeling that we fully understood the universe. and more than a hundred years latter we have more than a order of magnitude more physicists working on problems whose number seem to be ever expanding.
 

Similar threads

Canadian Law: Injunctions - complete newbie
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Particle exchange explaining attractive forces
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
It is not impolite and rude to judge people?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
Undergrad The Extended Wigner's Friend Scenarios
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
Helped someone do well in a class
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Finding support to complete a UK charity registration application
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Undergrad What Causes Attraction and Repulsion in Physics?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad What do we mean when we say that charge is moved or transfered
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
Graduate What does it mean when we say something exists in physics?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Dark Energy: Are We All Missing The Obvious?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K