 |
"The history
of scientific knowledge consists of a
perennial rigging and collapsing of ever expanding
paradigms - every expansion denied
and fought off with the last-ditch obstinacy of old guard scientists."-
Lew Paz
"In social sciences, the conventional terminology
eliminates critical standards and puts ethics on ice." - Andrew M.
Lobaczewski
“Most challenges to scientific orthodoxy are
wrong. A lot of them are crank. But it happens from time to time that a
challenge to scientific orthodoxy is actually right. And the people who make
that challenge face a terrible situation.”- Murray Gell-Mann
"The world-view of classical science informs the
dominant beliefs of
our culture. Science is a vast and
elaborate articulation of the defining myth of
our civilization: that
we are discrete and separate selves, living in
an objective universe of others. Science presupposes, embodies, and reinforces
that myth, blinding us to other
ways of thinking, living, and
being." -
Charles
Eisenstein
The Nature and Philosophy of
Science
The goal of science is to obtain knowledge of the
natural world.
The philosophy of science deals with the systemic nature
of scientific enquiry.
To properly understand the philosophy of
science, it is necessary to understand the basic components of science - data,
theories, and shaping principles. Collections of information about
physical processes are termed data. Collecting data to support theories is
laborious. Details of that process, including fundamental assumptions made, are
often excluded when forming a scientific theory. Data that is vague or
overgeneralized is easier to fit to a scientific theory than specific data.
Scientific theories come in two forms.
Phenomenological
theories are empirical generalizations of data. They merely describe the
recurring processes of nature and do not refer to their causes or mechanisms.
Phenomenological theories are also called scientific laws, physical laws, and
natural laws.
Explanatory theories attempt to explain the observations
rather than generalize them. Whereas laws are descriptions of empirical
regularities, explanatory theories are conceptual constructions to explain why
the phenomena exist.
Shaping principles are non-empirical fundamental
assumptions that form the basis of science and go into selecting every theory.
Originally science, a systematic way of acquiring knowledge, was seen
as absolutely objective, rational, and based on purely empirical observations.
This traditional image of science held that scientific theories and laws were
to be conclusively confirmed or conclusively falsified based on objective data.
It was believed that "the scientific method" excluded cognitive biases,
emotion, intuition, assumptions and was based entirely on logic and reason.
The definition of what "the scientific method" is has changed over
time.
In the early seventeenth century Baconian inductivism was
considered to be "the scientific method." The basic idea was this: collect as
numerous of observations as humanly possible, remain unaffected by any prior
prejudice, theoretical preconceptions or cognitive bias while gathering the
data, inductively infer theories from those data (by generalizing the data into
physical laws), and collect more data to modify or reject the hypothesis if
needed.
Unfortunately, when using inductivism to arrive at natural
laws, certain theoretical preconceptions are absolutely vital. To generalize
the data into physical laws, the individual must assume that the laws apply for
physical processes not observed. This results in several assumptions being
held, such as the uniform operation of nature. Even if we put aside the fact
that inductive logic is invariably based on such postulations, there is another
problem. Science deals with concepts and explanatory theories that cannot be
directly observed, including atomic theory and the theory of gravity. Many
other theories include unobservable concepts like forces, fields, and subatomic
particles. There is no known rigorous inductive logic that can infer those
theories and concepts solely from the data they explain.
Sir Isaac
Newton developed hypothetico-deductivism in the late 1600s. Essentially, one
starts with a hypothesis, basically a provisional theory, and then deduces what
we would expect to find in the empirical world as a result of that hypothesis.
The idea was to quarantine human irrationality or cognitive bias. A theory did
not become a valid theory by its origins, but because of the
hypothetico-deductive method of verification.
Hypothetico-deductivism
fails if rigorous proof is necessary for valid science . We must assume that:
sense experience, memory, and testimony are all generally reliable; we have
examined all the data and there is no possibility future observations will
behave unexpectedly. Every theory has an infinite number of expected empirical
outcomes, and we are incapable of testing all of those expectations. So even
though a scientific theory can be confirmed to some extent by empirical data,
it can never be conclusively confirmed. In science or anywhere else, any given
body of data (no matter how large) will always be in sync with an unlimited
number of alternative theories that explain the exact same data and at least
some of the theories will contradict each other. This reality is expressed as
data underdetermining theories, or is simply referred to as the
underdetermination of theories. As a result of the underdetermination of
theories and the risk of undiscovered, contradictory empirical evidence, a
scientific theory cannot be conclusively proven merely through the data.
Karl Popper recognized that one could not record everything
observed. Some sort of selection is needed, and thus observation is always
selective. Karl Popper believed that a hypothesis had to be created first for
scientific investigation to begin as there is no other way to tell which data
is relevant and to be observed. More importantly Karl Popper developed the idea
of falsification which suggests that if a prediction does not come true, then
the scientific theory must be false. Popper's idea of the scientific method was
for scientists to test scientific theories in experiments where the outcome
could potentially falsify the theory, especially in experiments where the
theory would most likely collapse. The necessity for a scientific theory to be
conclusively falsifiable is known as the demarcation criterion.
Surprisingly, the problem is that it is impossible to conclusively
falsify theories by empirical data.
Scientific theories, by themselves,
are incapable of making predictions. Instead, the empirical consequences of a
theory invariably rest on background assumptions (also called auxiliary
assumptions) from which to derive predictions and even to obtain data.
Suppose we have a particle theory that says if we process a certain
particle in a particular way, we will get specified values on various
measurements.
1. All theories (the particular electrical, atomic,
particle, etc. models that are used) involved in deriving the prediction are
correct;
2. The specific version of those theories and models (from #1)
from which the predictions are derived from are correct (for example, belief in
atoms have been widely accepted for quite some time now, but the precise
details and models of the exact composition, components etc. have significantly
varied.);
3. The prediction derived from those theories and specific
versions of those models is mathematically or logically correct; and
4.
Some other things we'll skip.
Note that most of the items depend on
scientific theories. But scientific theories, remember, cannot be conclusively
proven. The dependence on background assumptions to make predictions is
sometimes called the Duhem-Quine problem. Besides using auxiliary assumptions
to make predictions, such assumptions are necessary to find out if the
predictions come true. Suppose that in order to test our particle theory in the
real world we must use a certain particle accelerator in a particular way. To
experimentally test this, we must adhere to the following statements:
1. All of the theories and models (particle, electronic, engineering)
used in what we believe happens inside this accelerator are correct (including
the specifics);
2. All theories (electronics and so forth) on how the
detector works are correct (including the specifics of the models involved);
3. Both the detection devices and the accelerator are operating as
designed;
4. Both of the above devices are being used properly
(including the assumption that the readings are recorded correctly); and
5. Some other things we'll skip again.
Notice that several
of the items are again dependent on scientific theories, which cannot be
rigorously proven. Suppose the prediction does not come true and we observe
that, "this particle did not have the specified properties that it should've
had." That observation would be heavily dependent on theories. Although it is
possible that our theory could be wrong, it is also possible that instead one
or more of the assumptions listed are wrong. Often, the terminology used to
describe experimental results in addition to the measurements and instruments
used in testing theories make up another set of background assumptions. The
dependence on such postulations for obtaining data is described as observations
being theory-laden.
Theories can neither be conclusively proven nor
conclusively falsified by empirical data. It is possible to salvage a troubled
theory or make arguments against a well-supported theory simply by altering
auxiliary assumptions to produce different predictions or change the meaning of
theory-laden observations. It is also possible to modify virtually any theory
so that it's consistent with whatever data that might come up.
It is
evident that theories and data by themselves are insufficient for science to
work, and thus other factors are needed for science to operate. This group of
factors in the nature of science is that of shaping principles, which can be
used to select theories and form the foundations of science. Many assumptions
are made in science. One example is the uniformity of nature. That is, the
belief that natural processes operate in a fairly consistent manner. This
shaping principle is the basis for the idea of natural laws. Natural laws could
not exist in science without assuming the uniformity of nature. Other
assumptions made for science to operate include the belief that there exists an
external objective reality, that our senses are generally reliable, and so
forth.
Another set of shaping principles evaluates the empirical
evidence to select theories. Because of the underdetermination of theories,
there is always an infinite number of competing theories that can accommodate
any given set of empirical data. Since these competing theories are empirically
indistinguishable from each other, if science is to pick out a theory from
among these numerous competitors and claim that it is correct, then such a
selection must be based on nonempirical principles (whether they be
philosophical, personal, societal, or whatever). Ockham's razor or the law of
parsimony, a fundamental shaping principle of logic, states that, if all other
aspects are equal, the simplest theory is preferred over other theories
involving additional complexity.
The law of parsimony especially
applies to theories with ad hoc hypotheses. The lower the number of ad hoc
hypotheses a scientific theory has, the better. Other principles include (but
are not limited to) empirical adequacy (covering the pertinent data in some
suitable way), self-consistency, fruitfulness (giving rise to other
understandings and having stimulated pioneering investigations and
advancements), and explanatory power.
Another key shaping principle is
how well a theory ties in with other scientific theories and concepts that are
rational to believe. It is only when these kinds of shaping principles interact
with data can science then provide rational support for a theory over its
competitors.
There are a few exceptions to the idea that there is no
conclusive proof in science. Logic is the closest we can get to rigorous proof
and falsification. Sadly, not very many helpful theories can be thoroughly
proved by logic, and logic disproving a scientific theory is almost never used
because seldom does a scientist propose a theory that is logically impossible.
Typically science relies on other shaping principles to pick theories.
When using shaping principles to select a theory, we must have some
philosophical basis for believing that nature's preferences are similar to
ours. And for many of these principles there is no logical rule to imply their
reliability. For example, in picking out a theory from among it's empirically
indistinguishable competitors (and when all other factors are held constant),
the notion that reality favors simple theories over complex ones is
nevertheless a philosophical principle. Although these indicators of
theoretical truth are necessary for science to work, they are significantly
indirect, circumstantial, highly fallible, and are still unable to
prove/disprove theories. While science may be the best we can do, the
limitations should still be recognized.
Scientists intuitively feel how
rational scientific theories are, rather than having a precise logical method
for such judgments. These intuitive feelings result from shaping principles.
The interactions of shaping principles in the minds of scientists are so
complex and so numerous that we may never come up with a rigorously logical
system to select theories. Most of the shaping principles are frequently
unspoken and sometimes scientists themselves do not know they are using them.
Although some shaping principles are based on logic, others are not always so
sensible and objective. Scientists (and regular human beings) are also affected
by cultural, social, and personal beliefs. Shaping principles influence the
data we perceive as there is a tendency for the mind to unconsciously fill in
patterns based on these notions. Such human contamination is called internal
theoretical orientation of data. As a result, totally objective data cannot be
obtained.
Unfortunately there is no known way to separate the helpful
principles (explanatory power etc.) from the unfavorable ones (personal biases
etc.) in the subconscious minds of scientists that make these theory judgments.
Because every human being has their own unique set of shaping principles,
different scientists (and regular human beings) can look at the exact same set
of data and disagree about which theory most rationally explains the
observations. Science, therefore, is inescapably corrupted with bias as a bias
towards favored theories is actually built into all scientific research.
A delicate tapestry is woven based on background assumptions and a
collection of theories combined with their shaping and background principles
which thus make up an explanatory matrix, or conceptual grid, in which to fit
the observed data.
Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said,
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new
generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Hippocrates,
Greek physician
Archimedes, Sicilian mathematician
The distance and size of the
celestial bodies can be found by determining the
size of their eccentric and epicyclic circles relative to the Earth's radius.
The spherical
Earth can be projected onto a plane map using
geometrical techniques; localities can be plotted on a standard grid of
latitude and longitude lines.
Problems in plane and spherical trigonometry
can be solved with the help of a table of
the chords subtending the arcs from 0° to 90°.
The
data derived from
experiments can be
represented by mathematical
equations and can be presented in tabular
form.
Ptolemy, Eygptian astronomer
Motion is
relative.
The
Earth is not at the center of the
universe.
The sun, the planets,
and the stars do not revolve around the
Earth; rather; the
Earth is one of the planets, and it revolves around the
sun, as do the
other planets.
The apparent "loops" that the
planets make in their
motions across the
heavens are not
real
motions; they are mere
appearances, caused by our position on the
Earth and the Earth's
motion around the
sun relative to the
other planets.
The appearance of the
heavens' rotation about the
Earth is due to the
fact that we are on the Earth's surface and the
Earth is rotating about its axis once every
twenty four hours.
Nicholas Copernicus, Polish astronomer
Skeptical inquiry makes for
good human
life.
Appearances vary according to the
condition of the
observer and the
nature of what is to be
judged.
Sextus Empiricus, Greek physician and
philosopher
Giambattista Vico, Italian philosopher, historian,
and jurist
Marie-Jean Antoine Nicholas de Caritat, French
mathematician
Carl Freidrich Gauss, German mathematician and
scientist
Analogies are a valid
and
important tool in physical
theory.
Fundamental
forces have a
reality
of their own spreading through
all space.
Light consists of transverse electromagnetic
waves.
Our
knowledge is of
relations between
objects
rather than of the
objects in and of
themselves.
James Clerk Maxwell, Scottish mathematical
physicist
In
our disenchanted world, violence has
become the decisive means for politics.
Society must be
understood objectively, a procedure
that entails refusing to jump to evaluative conclusions.
An important contribution of
the social scientist is to alert
us to inconvenient
facts and the unintended
consequences of
human action.
Humankind may be constructing its own iron
cage:
Ironically and tragically, our own
presumed success and progress may trap
us.
Formerly no one was allowed to
think freely;
now it is permitted, but no
one is capable of it any more.
Now people want to
think only what they are
supposed to
think, and this they consider
freedom.
Oswald Spengler, German mathmatician
W. Lance Bennett, political scientist
What are the
moral convictions most fondly held by
barbarous and
semi-barbarous peoples?
They
are the convictions that authority
is the
soundest basis of belief;
that merit
attaches to readiness to believe;
that
the doubting disposition is a bad one,
and
skepticism is a
sin.
Thomas Henry Huxley, British biologist
Arnold Toynbee, English economic historian
There is no
absolute
knowledge. And those who claim it, whether
they are scientists or dogmatists, open the door to
tragedy. All
information is imperfect.
We have to treat it with
humility.
Jacob Bronowski, English-Polish
mathematician
I
believe in an
immortal
soul.
Science has proved that nothing
disintegrates into nothingness.
Life
and soul, therefore,
cannot
disintegrate into nothingness, and so are
immortal.
Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun,
German rocket scientist
Iron rusts
from disuse;
stagnant water loses it
purity
and in cold weather becomes
frozen;
even so does inaction sap the vigor of the
mind.
It is hard to have patience with
people who say
'There is no
death' or 'death doesn't matter.'
There is
death.
And whatever is
matters.
And whatever happens has
consequences,
and it and they
are irrevocable and irreversible.
You
might as well say that birth doesn't
matter.
Leonardo da Vinci, Italian scientist and
artist
None are more hopelessly
enslaved than
those who
falsely believe
they are free.
Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, German scientist,
philosopher and author
There is a lurking
fear that some
things are not meant “to be
known,” that some inquiries are too
dangerous for human beings to
make.
Carl Sagan, American astronomer and
astrobiologist
Always
remember that you are
absolutely unique.
Just like everyone else.
A small group
of thoughtful people could change the world.
Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Thanks to
television, for the very first
time the young are seeing
history being made before it is censored
by their elders.
I must admit that I personally measure
success in terms of the contributions an
individual makes to her or his fellow
human beings.
I was brought up to
believe that the only thing worth doing was
to add to the sum of accurate information in the world.
It is an open
question whether any behavior based on
fear of
eternal
punishment can be regarded as
ethical or should be regarded as merely
cowardly.
The solution to adult problems tomorrow depends on
large measure upon how our children grow up today.
We won't have a
society if we
destroy the
environment.
Margaret Mead, American cultural anthropologist, Presidential Medal of
Freedom recipient
"Science teaches us to look more closely,
to see more clearly. We decide that a theory
is valid only when it is proved by
experimentation and that
experimentation can be
replicated, and if it cannot be, we learn from this too and say: Here are the
limits of what is possible now. Science
is valid because it cannot be taken on faith alone.
In a complicated
reality, the public must
trust
experts,
because how can you
know what to do if you cannot
know what is
real?
Tell the
truth, always, we teach
students, withhold nothing from your
data.
It is a categorical imperative for
science and indeed for all
societies.
To 'tell the
truth always' comes from Immanuel Kant."
-Laurie Zoloth, professor of
medical humanities and bioethics
at Northwestern University's Feinberg
School
In August of 1962, Mariner 2 was launched for a
quick rendezvous with nearby Venus,
zipping by at a distance of 22,000 miles, scanning its radiation field and
proving that a terminal case of global warming
had completely ruined its surface for our kind of life.
That fly-by ushered in nearly half a
century of interplanetary visitations of historic evolutionary significance. About 4.6 billion
years after Earth and a handful of
planet siblings were assembled by random
collisions of rock, metal and ice, our planet began flinging small bits of itself
back out into the darkness, trying to
satisfy a newly evolved curiosity
with fragile machines equipped with
cameras and radio transmitters.
It
took so long because first there had to be a species with the audacity to
think that it could build such
contraptions, calculate their
trajectories and make them fly.
We
did it.
There is no more solid, visceral confirmation of the
truths embodied by the
Enlightenment and the
scientific revolution.
If
our ideas about other
planets are merely a "text" to be
deconstructed, or another
creation story to debate, if they are
culturally determined, internally
constructed, dreamed, projected or
imagined, then why are the
planets there, right there, where we
thought they would be?
David
Greenspoon, curator of astrobiology at the Denver Museum of Nature and
Science
physicist |
|
back to stacks
contents
 |
This web site is not a commercial web site and
is presented for educational purposes only.
This website defines a new religious
ideology to which its author adheres. The author feels that the falsification
of reality outside personal experience has created a populace unable to discern
propaganda from reality and that this has been done purposefully by an
international corporate cartel through their agents who wish to foist a corrupt
version of reality on the human race. Religious intolerance occurs when any
group refuses to tolerate religious practices, religious beliefs or persons due
to their religious ideology. This web site marks the founding of the religion
aptly named The Truth of the Way of Life - a rational religion based on reason
which requires no leap of faith, accepts no tithes, has no supreme leader, no
church buildings and in which each and every individual is encouraged to
develop a personal relation with God through the pursuit of the knowledge of
reality in the hope of curing the spiritual corruption that has enveloped the
human spirit. The tenets of The Truth of the Way of Life are spelled out in
detail on this web site by the author. Violent acts against individuals due to
their religious beliefs in America is considered a “hate
crime.”
This web site in no way condones violence. To the contrary
the intent here is to reduce the violence that is already occurring due to the
international corporate cartels desire to control the human race. The
international corporate cartel already controls the world central banking
system, mass media worldwide, the industrial military entertainment complex of
America and is responsible for the collapse of morals, the elevation of
self-centered behavior and the destruction of global ecosystems. Civilization
is based on cooperation. Cooperation does not occur at the point of a
gun.
American social mores and values have declined precipitously over
the last century as the corrupt international cartel has garnered more and more
power. This power rests in the ability to deceive the populace in general
through mass media by pressing emotional buttons which have been preprogrammed
into the population through prior mass media psychological operations. The
results have been the destruction of the family and the destruction of social
structures that do not adhere to the corrupt international elites vision of a
perfect world. Through distraction and coercion the direction of thought of the
bulk of the population has been directed toward solutions proposed by the
corrupt international elite that further consolidates their power and which
further their purposes.
All views and opinions presented on this web
site are the views and opinions of individual human men and women that, through
their writings, showed the capacity for intelligent, reasonable, rational,
insightful and unpopular thought.
All factual information presented on this web site is believed to be true and
accurate and is presented as originally presented in print media which may or
may not have originally presented the facts truthfully. Opinion and thoughts
have been adapted, edited, corrected, redacted, combined, added to, re-edited
and re-corrected as nearly all opinion and thought has been throughout time but
has been done so in the spirit of the original writer with the intent of making
his or her thoughts and opinions clearer and relevant to the reader in the
present time.
Fair Use Notice
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal
justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic,
scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. We believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in
section 107 of the United States Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. For more information see:
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted
material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
 Copyright
© Lawrence Turner
All Rights Reserved
|