[fusion event]Scientific Knowledge

Scientific Knowledge

James Kim will be leading this discussion.

Introduction:
Science is a field of study that has had an enormous impact on civilization. Many people have their worldviews informed by scientific knowledge, and the technology that we all depend on is developed based on models resulting from scientific inquiry. However, the questions of what science is, why it works, or if it does are complex and difficult to answer.

Describing science in a way that unambiguously delineates it from non-science that has historically proven problematic. In general, science is characterized by systematic observation and experimentation. It uses both inductive and deductive reasoning, and scientists form hypotheses and theories which are then tested. Many philosophers of science believe that there are a plurality of methods which can vary widely rather than a single scientific method which all scientists follow. With examples of science such as a chemist running experiments in a lab, an astronomer recording data from telescopes, and a climate scientist running simulations, such a conclusion seems unavoidable.

A General History of Science:
One figure whose methodology resembles modern science is Aristotle. He supported learning by observation and reasoning about the world, although he used passive observation rather than experimentation. According to him, the recording of observations wasn’t the aim of natural knowledge, but also to order them and find explanations. Aristotle also suggested two types of reasoning which in modern terms could be categorized as deductive, reasoning which must hold true given logical laws, and inductive, reasoning from observations.

Modern science further developed from the 16th century onwards, with figures like Galileo, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. It was at this time that a mathematical structure to the natural world was more seriously suggested and justified. There was also a reluctance to describe final explanations, such as Newton accepting that gravity was an “action at a distance” but withholding from explaining what caused it.

In the 19th century, two general categories of scientific reasoning were made more explicit. One was the hypothetico-deductive, in which scientists first form hypotheses which have observable consequences to be tested. The other was inductivisim, in which the observations of phenomena come first and then the scientist tries to derive laws which explain them.

In more recent times, philosophers have clarified many aspects of science. For example, a naïve approach to science is one which easily separates theory and observation. However, when notions of observation are scrutinized, it turns out that perhaps all observation is actually theory-laden. As an example, measuring temperature with a thermometer depends on belief in the mechanism by which the thermometer operates, whether that’s by thermal expansion of a liquid or infrared sensors.

One notable attempt to describe science was falsificationism by Karl Popper. According to him, what science should do is try to falsify hypotheses rather than confirm them. For example, instead of trying to confirm Coulomb’s law of electrostatic attraction by experimentation, the goal should be to try to prove it false with experiments on charged objects. Trying to “save” falsified hypotheses according to this standard would be bad science.
However, actual science is more complicated. Historical examples such as anomalies in the orbit of Uranus might have seemed to falsify Newtonian gravity, but this was solved by the effect of Neptune. To account for this, Popper later reformed his view to move towards testability of hypotheses rather than outright falsifiability.

Another important account of science is given by Thomas Kuhn. He believed that science has cycles of dominating paradigms, which scientists operate under until the paradigm shifts after new discoveries accumulate. The shift from classical physics to quantum is an example. Classical physics couldn’t account for energy transitions in atoms and electron orbits, and quantum physics resulted after it provided explanations and predicted experimental results. Also, according to Kuhn, while science does progress, sticking to just one scientific method would stifle it.

Realism and Anti-Realism:
The modern state of philosophy of science is complicated, but one debate exemplifies the reasons to believe or doubt scientific findings. This is the realist/anti-realist divide. Realists generally believe that scientific theories are at least approximately true, while anti-realists believe that theories don’t give true accounts of the world, approximately or not.

An example of an antirealist approach to science is Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the solar system. Some argued that it was just a tool for calculating positions of the planets in the sky, while others argued that it was true.

The concern over realism and anti-realism is important as science develops more concepts which are more removed from observation: energy, entropy, temperature, fields, etc. Theories involving these concepts not only inform our worldview, but can affect political policies.

One argument in favor of scientific realism is the no miracles argument. This argument states that scientific theories are so good at predicting results that it would be highly improbable for them to be untrue, i.e. a miracle. Therefore, scientific theories are at least approximately true. An objection to this is the shift from successful theories to significantly different ones, such as Newtonian gravity to general relativity. Even if Newtonian gravity can be described as a limiting case of relativity, what about theories which aren’t limiting cases of their replacements?

One significant anti-realist argument is the argument from empirically equivalent theories. It seems that since we can have multiple theories with different entities that are equally supported by empirical evidence, there is no way to choose between these theories. Objections to this include the assertion that there are other explanatory virtues besides empirical evidence, such as simplicity, explanatory scope, elegance, etc. Another is that it may be the case that there are theories which do predict results that no other theories give.

Science and Philosophy:
Scientific knowledge also informs many other fields of philosophy. Whether we take a realist or anti-realist stance, it will have to fit into our epistemology and how we justify knowledge in general. What kinds of observables do we believe in, which ones don’t we, and why?

Ethics is also impacted by scientific activity. Some philosophers believe that ethical properties are also natural properties. Even if ethical principles are more akin to abstract objects, scientific knowledge can also help greatly with applying them in our daily lives. The treatment of animals, reproductive ethics, and much more depend on biology.

In addition, metaphysics is greatly influenced. Many philosophers are naturalists, that the natural world is all that exists, which can be taken to mean that nothing defies scientific law. Notions of space, time, causality, structure and order to the universe are informed by scientific discoveries. Science also helps us learn about how to group objects into their natural kinds, categories which aren’t arbitrary but actual groups of objects in the universe.
Discussion Questions:
How do scientists justify their claims?
Are we justified in believing in scientific theories and the entities they posit?
Is there a general scientific methodology?
What are the limits of science?
What role does the scientist play? Is it possible for science to be done by following an algorithm rather than human judgement?

We meet in person and online.
In person will be at 10113 Seattle Slew Lane. The location does not have food for sale. There will be several large pizzas, and we request $2/slice. One pizza will be vegetarian. Tap water is available, please bring any other drinks desired.
Online will be: https://teams.live.com/meet/93583191724730?p=hY3jxVvnOciVl2aRn5