Modul 3 Knowledge and Science, Philosophy. Łukasz Zaorski-Sikora 2009
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Knowledge and Science
1. Introduction
2. Science
3. Methodological Empiricism
4. Experiential Empiricism
5. Rationalism
6. Kant’s ‘Copernican Revolution’
1. Introduction
This module is devoted to the issues of science and knowledge. Where does human
knowledge of the world originate from? How can scientific theories be verified?
What distinguishes the methods of science from other disciplines? How is science
different from literature, the arts or religion? What is the difference between a cor-
rect explanation and an incorrect one? In this section, we will examine the
philoso-
phy of science
and
epistemology
,
the philosophy of knowledge.
Knowledge is an integral element of all forms of awareness. Traditionally, when we
discuss knowledge we mean
acquired knowledge
, which is the result of experience
or the process of learning and science. The theory that maintains that a newly born
child’s mind is like a clean slate is known as
empiricism
. It holds that all human
awareness (the acquisition of knowledge) proceeds from the fivesenses(awareness
of the external world) as well as
introspection
which is the analysis of all mental proc-
esses (awareness of the internal world).
Empiricism is always placed in opposition to rationalism and nativism. The advo-
cates of
rationalism
maintain it is the mind which constitutes the ultimate source of
all knowledge. Furthermore, it claims that awareness exists independently of experi-
ence.
Nativism
on the other hand, assumes the existence of in-born features or innate
ideas in the human mind (an example of nativism is Plato’s idealism).
The subsequent sections in this module will provide definitionsofscienceandfalsi-
fication,
experiential empiricism
whose main interest is the inquiry into the origin of
awareness. We will also discuss
methodological empiricism
which maintains that true
awareness is always preceded by prior experience. Examples of this are Descartes’
rationalism and the transcendental aesthetics (epistemology) of Kant.
2
2. Science
Science is generally seen to be the most valuable and most effective way of becom-
ing aware of the world around us as well as predicting future events. Indeed, science
has been the catalyst for the development of civilisation and for the discoveries of,
amongst other, medicine and tools.
Not all discoveries, however, have brought benefittomankindanditissciencethat,
to a greater extent, has allowed man to become the master of the world of nature.
The scientificmethodproceedsfromtheideathatbeforewesupportanyproposition
we must first undertake a selection of appropriate tests and a detailed observation
of their results. This method is thus based on the rigorous and impartial collection
of data, experimentation and the correct (logical) generalisation of results that stem
from the collected data. The goal of science is to present objective results that can be
corroborated by anyone at a future date through the repetition of the experiment.
The above-stated method is associated also with the belief in the value of inductive
reasoning.
Induction
is a form of reasoning based on the drawing of general conclu-
sions from individual premises and instances as well as the drawing of general con-
clusions based on observation and experimentation. For example, the observation of
various species of mammal may lead us to suggest that all mammals are viviparous
(give birth to live young).
The opposite of induction is
deduction
, reasoning in which the conclusion is only
true if all particular instances are also true. An example of deductive argumentation
is a
syllogism
, a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two proposi-
tions that each share a term with the conclusion, and that share a common or middle
term not present in the conclusion, for example, Humans are mammals; every mam-
mal is viviparous; every human is viviparous.
Within deduction, the truthfulness of the premises guarantees the truthfulness of the
conclusion. Although inductive reasoning is built upon genuine premises, the con-
clusions need not be truthful. For example, the above-mentioned statement drawn
from inductive reasoning that all mammals are viviparous is an incorrect conclusion
because there are in fact mammals that do lay eggs (the duck-billed platypus and
porcupine) hence are not viviparous.
The value of induction is greater when more examples are considered and our con-
clusion is less general as only one contradictory example is required to bring down
our hypothesis.
An attempt at overcoming the weaknesses of induction as a scientific method was
the method of
falsification
as proposed by
Karl Popper
(1902 - 1994). He claimed
that a key factor was to firstlydistinguishsciencefrompseudo-science(forexample,
alchemy or astrology). What is more, he laid claim that no one had yet managed to
rationally justify the value of inductive reasoning because it is not possible to form
a universal law from a very large number of individual instances and premises, for
example, the existence of a very large number of white swans that can be observed in
the world has no bearing and cannot justify the conclusion that all swans are white.
For this reason Popper turned to deduction which “tests” a theory. A detailed, de-
duced statement be posited from a theory and then this statement can be experimen-
3
tally tested. The basic characteristic of a scientific theory is that it can be negated
through experiment. If we demonstrate that a theory is false then it must either be
rejected or altered. In this light, it is obvious that general statements which purport
to be scientifictheoriesareeasiertofalsifythanuphold.
At the same time, if no possible observation can falsify the theory which is under
analysis we can safely say that it cannot be a scientifichypothesis.Forexamplethe
statement, ‘It will snow tomorrow or it might not’ is in no way scientific because
there is no event that could possibly disclaim it. However, ‘It rains on every first
Friday of the month in Łódź’ fulfils the requirements of a scientific prediction. If
it rains in the specifiedperiodthenthetheory is confirmed,however,onlyonein-
stance of it not raining on a firstFridayofthemonthisneededtonegate(orfalsify)
the statement.
Accordingly, as scientists we must firstlybeginwithatheoryandthenconductob-
servations. This means that science develops through a process of trial and error. A
scientifictheorymustthereforebefalsifiableandmustallowfortheadvancementof
successive predictions.
Does falsificationexplaincompletelytheprogressofscience?Asweknow,fewem-
pirical facts supported Copernicus’ heliocentric view in the 16
th
century and even in
the beginnings of the 20
th
century many astronomers ignored the fact that Mercury’s
orbit does not correspond to Newtonian mechanics. If all scholars were to act in
accordance with Popper’s claims many of science’s great theories would have to be
rejected. Falsificationdoesnotadequatelyexplainmanysignificantturningpointsin
the history of science.
It was as late as the 1960s that the American philosopher,
Thomas Kuhn
(1922 -
1995) proposed an approach that allowed for the rejection of the irregularities of
history found within the methodology of pure science and its claims. He focused to
a much greater extent than Popper on the social and institutional conditioning of the
scientificmethodandfoundthatsciencefunctionswithintheframeworkofasystem
of basic assumptions, a
paradigm
. Science, he claimed, consistently goes through ex-
ceptional and revolutionary phases when an old paradigm is refuted and, following
a short period of rivalry between the two, is replaced by the new one.
The existence of a paradigm (a system of rules) which is accepted by a scientific
community distinguishes a science from a non-science. When a new aspect of reality
is discovered through experimentation and does not comply with the afore-stated
paradigm it is initially treated as an unessential anomaly. However, if more evi-
dence is found and more contradictions appear this leads to the emergence of a new
paradigm that can explain these new facts and discoveries. Steadily, more scholars
begin to reject the old paradigm substituting it with the new one. This process is
commonly known as scientific revolution. Thus, science evolves by a sequence of
successive paradigmatic leaps.
An interesting view of science was posited by the US philosopher
Paul K. Feyerabend
(1924 - 1994) who wrote about the sterile and problematic nature of many theories
that claim to be complete and consistent systems and fully encompass and compre-
hend reality. He noticed that the confrontation of scientific theories with experi-
ential data led to dogmatism because the facts that these scientists draw on are not
unbiased in the face of a tried and tested theory, furthermore, in the face of other
theories may not even be regarded as facts.
Therefore, Feyerabend whole-heartedly defended “theoretical pluralism” claiming
that a water-tight assessment of a theory must not only stand up to the results of
experience but also to other alternative theoretical assumptions. Consequently, we
cannot reject an idea merely because it does fitintotherationalistcanonofscience.
4
Therefore, the rejection of canon and paradigms is a condition of progress and de-
velopment: “Without chaos there is no science. Without greater rejection of reason
there is no progress”.
5
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]