Natural science is so successful because…

Great Debates
1

Natural science is so successful because…

‘Normal science’, as described by Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, is the science of means, controlled generally by a paradigm. We normally use the word ‘science’, which has more than one meaning, to mean the ‘normal science’ that Kuhn speaks of. Science, to the laity, is a word encompassing technology and probably all that is good about the human ability to reason. I suspect the average person often wonders why everyone cannot be scientific about developing solutions for all problems. Why cannot we be scientific and rational in solving all our problems?

Science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The natural sciences such as physics operate within the confines of a paradigm. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. For example the laws of physics as developed by Newton are a paradigm. Einstein’s theory of relativity is a paradigm. The sanctity of the ‘market place’ is a paradigm of economics.

The college student of physics studies these paradigms of the science of physics to qualify for acceptance into that particular profession. From these paradigms patterns of recognition and routines and algorithms for solutions have evolved and are memorized by all students who wish to join that particular profession. An algorithm is a step-by-step process for solving a problem. A simple example of an algorithm is the process we learned to accomplish long division.

Science involves itself only in problems definable by paradigms and algorithms. Science is successful because it deals only with these unilogical problems. These problems are circumscribed by the paradigm and contain many algorithms for guiding the practitioner into the proper mode for solution of the problem.

Normal science utilizes the ‘scientific method’ to solve problems. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves in incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties. Science solves puzzles.

The “scientific method” forms the heart of scientific legitimacy. This method consists in assembling evidence, combining that evidence with assumptions, and analyzing the combination in a logical manner to develop a hypothesis. This hypothesis is the bases for predicting what should happen in certain conditions if this hypothesis is true. Evidence is assembled to test the validity of the hypothesis. If the evidence indicates that the hypothesis has not been proven to be invalid then other predictions based on the hypothesis are used to construct additional experiments to further test its legitimacy.

There are two very noteworthy characteristics of the scientific method that I wish to bring to your attention.

The validity of a hypothesis can only be determined by empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is obtained by observation alone. This means that only measurable quantities can be used to legitimate a scientific hypothesis. If an experiment cannot be created that will permit a physical measurement of the results verifying the hypothesis then the hypothesis cannot have any scientific legitimacy. For science, “to be”, is to be measurable. Empirical evidence is the only means for verification in the scientific world.

The second noteworthy characteristic, which follows from the first, is that scientific experimentation can only prove that a hypothesis has not yet been proven to be illegitimate. The empirical evidence derived from a test of a hypothesis proves, not that the hypothesis is true, but only that the hypothesis has not been proven to be untrue. Science does not deal in absolute truth but only in probability.

A set of hypotheses becomes a theory after sufficient tests have failed to show that any hypothesis in the set is invalid. The scientific community elevates the concept encompassed by the set to the more mature and prestigious nomenclature of being a theory.

Science offers no absolute truth. Science can speak with authority only in matters of fact. Any scientific theory can be shown to be invalid by one bit of evidence that proves that the theory cannot be true. No accumulation of evidence can ever prove any scientific theory to be absolutely true. Only theology presumes to offer absolute truth. This presumed truth of theology is a matter of faith but not a matter of fact.

Do you think that science provides absolute truth?

Do you know what is meant by the statement ‘normal science solves puzzles’?

2

Please could you provide an example of a problem not definable by paradigms or algorithms?

3

Should America invade Iraq?

4

Thanks.

5

Not a good example; totally definable by paradigms and workable by algorithms. Different people would reach different conclusions because they would be starting with different paradigms, which would be based on different basic principles. Those basic principles come down, in some cases, to “gut feelings”. And, true, those “gut feelings” are not based on a rigorously logical assessment of observable natural phenomena. Kudos!

Was there a point to this?

6

It is a question of means and ends. If it has been decided to invade Iraq, then the goal has been decided, the next question is what is the best means. Means are often determined by algorithms and paradigms. The military has, I suspect, all kinds of such algorithms and paradigms avalable for such things.

7

Because it’s testable to determine if it works or if its bullshit (unlike some other methodologies, ehe?). In the end its so successful because it works consistently, especially over the long run…while other methods do not.

-XT

8

Is there ever?

Is this thread any different to the last one, or the one before that?

9

When you say “paradigms and algorithms”, do you mean ones that are “generally accepted as a starting point/methodology by others who study the problem”, or just the fact that every proposed solution has a starting point and path it follows?

I suspect the former, as the latter seems a fairly trivial insight. If so, the power of science then really lies in developing a consensus on a paradigm/algorithm in an effective-for-solving-other-problems way. There are, of course, other ways of developing this paradigm consensus (mass-marketing springs to mind), and sometimes the forcefulness/appeal of a particular solution allows one to start from an unsupportable paradigm or analyze it using unacceptable algorithms (e.g. the various individual justifications for buying lottery tickets).

However, it may be that the methods science uses for developing their paradigms/algorithms are inapplicable to non-scientific fields. The “Should We Invade Iraq?” question is a good example; people tried to answer that based on a certain paradigm regarding the Middle East. Perhaps we should ask how that paradigm was developed, since it seems the consensus opinion of beltway pundits was based on a paradigm that turned out to be horribly wrong. Could a better paradigm about Middle Eastern policy been developed in advance of the need to answer that question, one that would have allowed us to avoid this blunder? I’m really not sure, as it’s hard to see how the methods used in science to develop paradigm-consensus (direct experiment generally) could be applied to, say, US foreign policy.

10

The author notes that all “real science is normally a habit-governed, puzzle-solving activity” and not a philosophical activity. Paradigm and not hypothesis is the active meaning for the ‘new image of science’. Paradigm is neither a theory nor a metaphysical viewpoint.

Kuhn’s new image of science—the paradigm—is an artifact (a human achievement), a way of seeing, and is a set of scientific problem solving habits. Normal science means research based upon one or more past achievements ‘that some particular community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice…and these achievements are sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group pf adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity’ furthermore they are sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solve’. Such achievements Kuhn defines as paradigm.

“A puzzle-solving paradigm, unlike a puzzle-solving hypothetico-deductive system, has also got to be a concrete ‘way of seeing’.”

Kuhn constantly refers to the ‘gestalt switch’ when discussing the switch in reference from one paradigm to another as ‘re-seeing’ action. Each paradigm has been constructed to be a ‘way-of-seeing’. Here Kuhn is speaking not about what the paradigm is but how the paradigm is used. He is defining a paradigm as a newly developed puzzle-solving artifact that is used analogically to understand another artifact; for example, using wire and beads strung together to facilitate understanding the protein molecule.

To understand Kuhn I must understand what is “an organized puzzle-solving gestalt, which is itself a ‘picture’ of something, A, if it is then to be applied, non-obviously, to provide a new way of seeing something else, B.”

11

Yes, I believe it provides exactly that.

I believe the meaning I am meant to take from it is that science is designed to burrow out the truth, whereas theology is designed to give truth.

I have a question in turn. Do you know what is meant by the statement “total interior knowledge renders imperfect processes perfect to the true exterior”?

12

I do not. I would be interested in finding out.

13

I’ll strip off my fancy words, then. :wink:

Basically, I do believe that science gives us absolute truth. Even if the experiment is flawed, what we get will out of it will still be true - if we take that flaw into account. The problem is in our interpretation of the results we get, not in the results themselves.

14

Do you think many people believe in this absolute as you do? Is this something you have learned from reading books? Are you a religious person?

15

I’m unsure; no, other than reading to understand science, it’s more a logical deduction; and no, respectively.

Do you agree with me? It’s always good to get a dissenting opinion. Debating is essentially reading but better and more specific.

16

We all know you are steeped in religion, to the point of blindness to other views. And that’s the 100% absolute truth.

17

It appears to me that most people on Internet forums are young, under 25. Most of these people see the forum as a verbal video game. In such a game it is necessary to have two sides to keep the game going.

I try to introduce another type of topic for those who might wish to take a more serious view of the world. I try to introduce ideas about which most readers are unfamiliar in the hope that this ideas might engage the curiosity of the reader and that the reader will try to comprehend their meaning and will go to the books or Google and expand their world by seeking new knowedge.

18

If you are refering to coberst then you are mistaken. I am an agnostic. I was raised as a Catholic however and learned from the nuns all about religion.

19

I’m myself under 25 (21, to be exact). I see forums more as a way to refine arguments; not a competition between two with some score kept, but a way of presenting your ideas of the world and getting as many people as possible to poke any holes they see in it, and vice versa.

Also I’d suggest that this shows a good level of ageist bias on your part, but then I wouldn’t expect an old fart like you to understand that*. :wink:

What about when others attempt to engage your curiosity? You seem very keen to have an affect, but not to be affected in return. You yourself do not appear willing to address and learn by yourself; you give off the air of one who has read books and is satisfied with what they know, an abhorrent idea to me.

*A joke, in case it’s not obvious.

20

What if there was observational error in the experiment? Would that provide truth? What if there were variables unaccounted for?

Science certainly converges on absolute truth (sometimes non-linearly) but even if it has reached absolute truth in a certain result, we have no way of confirming that it has.

I can agree that science is the best way of converging on absolute truth we know of - but let’s not get too cocky about it.