The answers have changed

The answers have changed.

The story goes that Albert Einstein when was giving out a final exam to his physics students at Princeton University. As he was handing out the exam, his teaching assistant noticed it was the same exam questions that Einstein had given out the previous year. The assistant was confused and decided to ask Einstein why he was giving the same exam two years in a row. Einstein smiled and said "The questions are the same, but the answers have changed."

The story is an excellent reminder that what was considered the correct answer yesterday might be different tomorrow.

Consider a question from everyday life: What is your phone number?. The answer to the question could change from one day to another if you change your number, or it could also be that if you want to avoid being contacted by the person asking, you provide them with a number other than yours. The answers to the scientific question At what temperature is water the heaviest? change less frequently than communication preferences, but on a more fundamental level, is there a reason to believe one can change but the other cannot?

Consider everyday scenarios like food preferences or phone numbers. These preferences are inherently subjective, varying from person to person and even from day to day. In contrast, the laws governing the universe are often regarded as objective. When we conduct natural science experiments, we expect the results not to vary based on who experimented, what their beliefs are etc, whether they experimented on Monday instead of Thursday, etc.

But if we follow this reasoning one step further, what would make the universe's laws objective? It is a convenient supposition. What do you mean by convenient? It seems well supported by my experiences; for example, throwing a stone in the air falls to the ground every time.

In addition to my self-initiated actions of throwing a stone, I have observed others doing the same, with the same outcome; the stone eventually fell to the ground. In addition to the firsthand experiences, people have told me similar stories. I have not read anything contradicting these experiences; therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the laws are objective. This is an example of pragmatism, i.e. weighing up the pros and cons of various aspects and assigning them a definition.

There is another interesting connection between the story about Albert Einstein and that by the American pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce, who believed that the ultimate aim of inquiry and the scientific method is to arrive at the truth or at least to converge/approach the truth.

He further emphasized the importance of the fallibilism of science, stating that our beliefs are always subject to revision in light of new information and evidence.