Science and mistakes

Ultimately, and by definition, everything we think we know, advance and understand in the field of science is wrong. Because it is wrong, simply, or because it is insufficient and incomplete. Because a later theory will encompass and digest any idea, or because a later discovery will break down the logic of any hypothesis. Everything that is advanced or discovered in science will be surpassed; everything we think we know about the universe is less than what the universe is, and later scientists will work hard to prove it that way. The fate of any advance, discovery, hypothesis or theory is to end up in the history books of science. Because the advance of knowledge will have left it gone. Because we will never, ever get to know it All about All things, understand Everything about Everything there is.

In that sense all science is a mistake. And this is how it should be, because the opposite would be to stop it in its tracks, stop its advance, prevent its development. The most that anyone who is dedicated to science can aspire to is to make mistakes.

Of course, if that person is ambitious his mistakes will be interesting. The most a scientist can hope for is to make interesting mistakes.

Errors that leave doors open; errors that drive the advance of science. Errors that are insufficient, but point in a good direction. Fecund errors, pregnant with questions that generate new answers. Errors that drive the minds of new scientists; mistakes that even anger and irritate others, thus encouraging them to correct them. Big mistakes, rich, full, that generate controversy, that push the investigation, that suppose an advance. Although it is a tiny advance, insufficient, too small; although it is no more than another error in a chain of errors that goes back to the knowledge of the first humans, a saga of errors that began in prehistory and is directed to the future.

Knowledge can never be definitive, perfect, closed, final. Always leave fringes, corners to explore, new parts to know. In the old metaphor about Humanity's knowledge, it is compared to a sphere, which when it increases in volume has a greater contact surface with the unknown: in reality, the more we know the more we do not know, because each new knowledge spreads new fields to the ignorance. Much better to provide imperfect knowledge but open new doors to try to achieve what is impossible by definition.

After all All Models are erroneous, but some are useful. The same goes for the work of any scientist; It will always be wrong, but if science is good it will at least be interesting, fruitful, useful. Can you aspire, perhaps, to more?

About the author: José Cervera @Retiario is a journalist specialized in science and technology and teaches digital journalism.