Science is regarded and introduced to students as a systematic study of knowledge. The relevant sense of "systematic" is due to science’s acquisition of knowledge through a reliable method. Such reliable method is argued as capable of yielding reliable knowledge - knowledge that has high probability of being true.
It is commonly argued that science’s main purpose is to create laws and/or theories to explain and predict phenomena by observing regularities in nature. Such empirical observation of regularities seeks to discover/uncover the underlying uniformities (among phenomena) in nature. If science is a systematic study of knowledge (that uses a reliable method), we can say that science is only one among approaches to acquisition of knowledge (of the world). It is just that science does so by focusing on observable phenomena, which serves as its focal point of investigation, and uses a purported reliable method to establish the veracity of the explanation and prediction regarding the observation on such observable phenomena.
This purported reliable method, or scientific method, includes stating the problem regarding a phenomenon, collecting pertinent data through observation and/or measurement, formulating hypotheses, testing these hypotheses, and finally, forming a conclusion, which later on would be established as a theory after the adequate testing and acceptance of the scientific community. According to Yogesh Malhotra, science is distinct because of its "intersubjective certification," where its being empirical allows other investigators ascertain the truth of a scientific explanation.
It is by virtue of this "intersubjective certification" that we can see the value of scientific method. Science rests on empirical testability. Even if one argues that all knowledge claims are tentative and subject to revision, scientific claims could be argued as grounded on evidences that we (can) test because they are empirical. Scientific claims are, therefore, not mere belief but beliefs that are justified by (empirical) evidences. This is what makes one argue that science yields reliable knowledge (scientific claims) through a reliable method (scientific method).
Another purpose of the scientific method could be seen in its dullness. The dullness and simplicity of science is a mark of a careful analysis of nature or the world. Robert Pirsig, in his Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, stated "The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know." Scientific method allows us to separate other unobservable alternatives from the observable ones, which serve as the focal point of investigation in science. This simplification allows us to have a careful examination of the phenomenon in question.
Even if one argues that science does not brag that it rests on certainty and maintains that it rather rests on empirical testability, which makes it a reliable source of reliable knowledge, it, as well as its purported reliable method, is not free from criticisms. Paul Feyerabend’s theoretical anarchism argues that science does not have a monopoly in yielding a reliable knowledge; that science cannot brag that its empirical testability makes it the most reliable source of knowledge.
Feyerabend’s critique of science’s consistency criterion (consistency in terms of theories), is, at some point, similar to other scientists’ accounts in their defense of science. It yields account similar to other scientists that question not the reliability and uniformity of scientific method - the account that there can be rival theories in science and we must not, of necessity, deny the new theory that is inconsistent with the old one, because the new one may yield a better explanation of the phenomenon in question than the old one. We must take into consideration that scientific method does not necessarily mean an appeal to the consistency criterion, because it may be established, through the scientific method, that the new theory that is inconsistent with the old one yields a better explanation of the phenomenon in question.
It is the case, however, that Feyerabend’s denial of consistency criterion is not due to the emergence of new evidence that may falsify the old idea/theory, but mainly due to his anarchistic approach on the acquisition of knowledge. He argues that there is no single method that we can say as reliable in acquiring knowledge. He is skeptic of the idea that empirical approach is the best approach in acquiring knowledge. He argues that this is just one of the many approaches, but this does not make it the best.
This construal is a corollary of how Feyerabend views the world. He views the world as a "largely unknown entity." Our want to explore this "largely unknown entity" cannot be satisfied by a single method of looking at it. There is no single way of looking at the world, and thus no method can claim the throne of the best approach into acquiring knowledge. Saying that one is more reliable is elitism without being certain that such is indeed more reliable because the world is a large entity that we cannot fully understand.
Positing that science has such a uniform method is, according to Feyerabend, only to simplify the aim of scientific education to simplify science and to make it appear objective. It seeks to separate science’s domain of research from others so that science could have a language and logic of its own. Science’s focal point of investigation is isolated from other fields to make scientific facts appear as independent of opinions/interpretations, though they, in fact, unavoidably/inevitably are. Science’s elimination of other alternative options of looking into nature or the world is an unjustified elitism. As noted, there is no single way of looking at the world.
Feyerabend asserted that it is possible to create such a tradition that excludes itself from other disciplines or other approaches into acquisition of knowledge - that it is possible for science to exclude itself from other disciplines and be held by strict rules. But he also asserted that this tradition is not desirable as it inhibits progress. He believes that progress is only possible when there is a free market of ideas, not when there is a monopoly of a single and uniform method. Feyerabend, then, construes progress in science as brought about by no single method, but by a free market of ideas.
Feyerabend’s criticism of a single and uniform method in science establishes certain great points. First, it explains to us that a single and uniform scientific method, which is taught to us in schools, is (or may not be) the best approach in acquiring knowledge of the world. It explains to us that no single method, or even science itself, cannot brag us of itself as the best approach in understanding the world. Second, it explains to us that science cannot be purely objective due to the simplification that it does (due to scientific method). It explains that scientific facts are essentially affected by (established) theories. However, I deem of his criticism as unable of refuting the reliability of the scientific method.
The two points stated in the previous paragraph may be also believed by one who does not deny the reliability of the scientific method. We may say that scientific method is not the best method because we consider that there might be a better method of acquiring knowledge. But we may also say this while arguing that scientific method is more reliable that yields more reliable results than mere speculations about phenomena. We may say that science is not purely objective because objectivity and certainty is not among the goals of science. Its simplification through elimination of alternative options (or separation of unobservable matters) from that of observable matters is a matter of weighing evidences. Science seeks to eliminate the unobservable as it cannot serve as evidence or proof for our belief about the world. Scientific method shows us how things are and gives us evidences for our beliefs. It is opposed to other approaches of dealing with knowledge such as witchcraft, superstitions, voodoo, etc. that takes beliefs as if they were self-evidently true. For those who take that things are not just because they are, who take that there must be reasons by which things are, evidence is a must. This evidence cannot be seen in a mere act of faith. Even though we may say that scientific method is not the best approach, it provides us with evidences that we desire. And as long as we accept these evidences as reasons for how things in nature are, as long as we believe these evidences as proofs of our beliefs about nature or the world, we cannot throw away the notion of reliability of the scientific method.
It is a matter of evidences versus mere act of faith. Those who side with evidences, side with science and the scientific method.
No comments:
Post a Comment