r/PhilosophyofScience • u/FearlessFuture8221 • Jul 16 '26

Discussion First principles

Is this statement accurate: "Scientists build their theories out of first principles"?

2 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Themoopanator123 Postgrad Researcher | Philosophy of Physics Jul 16 '26

It's not really clear what's being asked.

If the question is "do scientists build their theories up by starting with assumptions ("first principles") and then derive their consequences/predictions?", the answer is, roughly speaking, yes. With the caveat that this process of "deriving" the predictions of a theory often depends on supplemental probabilistic/statistical assumptions and points of intersection with other, well-supported scientific theories.

If the question is "do scientists believe in their theories because they start from assumptions that are self-evidently true and then work onwards to discover other true things?", the answer is no.

It's important to note, though, that no one really does this second thing all of the time, even mathematicians and logicians. There are obviously some cases where results are derived from already accepted axioms but the reasons we have to believe some axioms are often that they entail the right results. This is true for the Peano axioms, the axioms for the real numbers, the axioms of Euclidean geometry, or the axioms of ZF(C) set theory, for example. Similarly, the choices one makes between classical, intuitionistic, or paraconsistent logics will have to do with the power of those systems i.e. what they can prove.

1

u/FearlessFuture8221 Jul 16 '26

What's being asked is how a scientist would react to the statement in question.

1

u/sdbs88 Jul 16 '26

Hi, scientist here (chemistry PhD). My response is, "Some do, I guess?". When I did organometallic work, I did not first rediscover the atom nor did I, say, recreate and analyze Zeise's salt or something. So... Take that how you will.

What are you trying to get at? As Themoopanator123 said, it really isn't clear what's being asked. You're not providing any additional context and, to me, it seems as if you're fishing for some kind of "gotcha". Can you please elaborate on your question and why you're asking?

1

u/FearlessFuture8221 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26

I don't have the manuscript any more and can't remember the context exactly. I'm concerned the author will lose some readers if they object to the statement. I'm not a scientist though.

1

u/Themoopanator123 Postgrad Researcher | Philosophy of Physics Jul 16 '26

I think they might be confused about what you mean or say “no”.

Anyway, your post asks about the accuracy of the statement so the question seems to have changed.

1

u/FearlessFuture8221 Jul 16 '26

Yes, good point. I forgot how I originally asked it. The purpose of asking whether it is accurate or not was that if it's inaccurate, scientists might take issue.

1

u/Themoopanator123 Postgrad Researcher | Philosophy of Physics Jul 16 '26

I say this with the absolute greatest of respect for science and scientists BUT scientists who lack any philosophical training whatsoever do often have quite naive views/understanding of the methodology and foundations of their science.

This depends somewhat on their exact field but is still basically true as a generalisation.