For a long time I've puzzled over the relationship of post-modernity to science. How could something that claimed relativism with multiple truths be true if it could not be applied to every realm of truth? The scientific method seems to accept only one version of "truth" (you hypothesize, test that theory, and then have that theory proven or disproven) but if post-modernity is the death of reason, how will that relate to science.
Well, it seems like I'm not the only one who has thought about such things and the answer to my question came from the nerds at Wired magazine. Let me give me a quote: "But faced with massive data, this approach to science — hypothesize, model, test — is becoming obsolete. Consider physics: Newtonian models were crude approximations of the truth (wrong at the atomic level, but still useful). A hundred years ago, statistically based quantum mechanics offered a better picture — but quantum mechanics is yet another model, and as such it, too, is flawed, no doubt a caricature of a more complex underlying reality. The reason physics has drifted into theoretical speculation about n-dimensional grand unified models over the past few decades (the "beautiful story" phase of a discipline starved of data) is that we don't know how to run the experiments that would falsify the hypotheses — the energies are too high, the accelerators too expensive, and so on." (Here is the full link)
Lot of reading, and for that I'm sorry. When I read this article I got so excited. Data; pure, raw data is overwhelming the scientific process. So instead of looking for new theories, we now should look for causation. Pure brilliance, if you ask me. The world is now living post-truth and we don't know or care. And yes, I do acknowledge the irony: "If you swear/that there's/no truth/and who cares/how come you say like you're right."
1 year ago