Physics: Is It Really Genuine Knowledge?

In a present day conference on whether physics can provide valuable, genuine knowledge of the world, two people sit, listening attentively. Both people are deep in thought about their own theories on the subject. One, David Hume, shakes his head in outright denial. While most those in the conference are in agreement that physics can, indeed, provide genuine knowledge, he contends that physics and mathematics provide nothing at all. In fact, he thinks to himself, only things that can be divvied up into various sensory impressions provide genuine knowledge and, since mathematics and sciences cannot (particularly because they rely on causal relationships) they are essentially a waste of time.

Across the room is Immanuel Kant. At certain times of the conference he shakes his head in agreement; but in others he gives a quizzical, almost uncertain look, and gently shakes his head sideways. Many in the conference are neglecting to discuss the topic of sensory impressions, seemingly taking their beliefs for granted. Kant, on the other hand, like Hume, believes that sensory impressions are how we understand the world. However, unlike Hume, our mind shapes the world with these impressions; the mind arranges the sensations, transforms them into objects. After all, sensations cannot arrange themselves, yet humans constantly see a variety of sensory impressions as physical objects.

During an intermission in the conference, both Hume and Kant take a walk to reenergize their minds. Incidentally, they bump into each other. Both being intellectuals, they decide to take up an informal conversation on the subject themselves. Since the walk is short, they decide to give each other one chance to explain their thoughts and convince the other. They f...

... middle of paper ...

... provide genuine knowledge since these laws must apply to all objects.

Therefore, I cannot agree with your conclusion even if some of your theory is solid.”

Soon after this conversation the two return to the conference. Many decades later, further conferences still debate the value of physics and more questions are raised that would require both Hume and Kant to revise their arguments so that they address various issues. Of these includes that physics is slowly moving away from certainty and universality. Instead, it’s becoming probability based, even if many of the probabilities are astronomically high. Furthermore, now that we can detect energy transfer, Hume’s argument on causality is not nearly as strong. Finally, if physics and other sciences hold no genuine knowledge, how can we possibly apply the sciences to envision, detect, and create new objects?