In the last 100 years, some of the greatest minds - from the founders of quantum mechanics such as Heisenberg and Planck to Hawking - have moved away from thinking science can capture an objective ultimate reality. And yet from Dark Matter to String Theory, we still look for the correct answer, sure that the next theory might be the one. Is this a fundamental mistake? Hawking in his final book certainly concluded it was saying, 'There is no unique picture of reality' arguing that the competing models of science each frames its own version of reality.
Should we give up on a single true account and accept that there are many alternative scientific accounts of the world each with their own effectiveness? Would this enable a greater plurality of theories and enable faster technical advance? Or does an account of science as mere models risk encouraging the pursuit of empty alternatives with no way to choose between them, threatening the whole edifice of science itself?
Pioneering philosopher of science Bjørn Ekeberg, pre-eminent sceptic Michael Shermer, and Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford Sunetra Gupta debate whether science can ever achieve an objective model of ultimate reality.
100