Written By: Alex Liao
Definition of Science
Science is essentially the “philosophy” of our natural world. It is formulated through empirical observation, logical reasoning, and construction of theories that explain and predict natural phenomena, continuously being refined either through modification or replacement. According to Einstein, “The whole of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking”. However, Einstein also stressed: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution”, emphasizing imaginative thinking drives scientific breakthrough rather than existing knowledge. Basically, science is a mix of human understanding and decision through logical empiricism that combines reality, the belief of interconnectedness, and acceptance of multivariable interpretations.
The Problem of Demarcation
The Problem of Demarcation is categorized in the philosophy of science and epistemology (the theory of knowledge regarding methods, validity, scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion) which questions how science is distinguished from pseudoscience. Philosopher Karl Popper pioneered this problem with his Principle of Falsifiability; even though Popper’s principle has been dismissed by numerous philosophers and physicists, it served as the foundation of future debate and infrastructure widely used to today such as public education, courtroom law, and research funding.
Popper believes that theories gain credibility when they make risky predictions that, if proven false, would contradict the theory. A strong scientific theory restricts certain outcomes from happening, and the more it restricts, the better it is. The concept of "irrefutability" is criticized, as theories that cannot be tested or disproven are considered unscientific. Testing a theory involves trying to falsify it, and the degree of testability varies among theories. Confirming evidence is meaningful only if it results from a genuine attempt to test the theory, which may include unsuccessful attempts to disprove it. Theories can be upheld even when proven false through ad hoc adjustments, at the expense of undermining their scientific credibility. Essentially, Popper views a theory’s potential for falsification paramount as it induces innovation.
Popper compares Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to Freudian Psychoanalysis, and Adlerian Individual Psychology. Freud and Adler all share extraordinary explanatory power as they practically explain everything in their fields of study. Meaning anything that’s intended to falsify would be confirming evidence that verifies the theory; hence, Freud and Adler’s theories were simply non-testable, irrefutable as there was no conceivable human behavior that could contradict them. Example of which was when Freud and Adler were presented with two different examples of human behavior: a man who pushes a child into water with the intention of drowning it; and a man who sacrifices his life attempting to save the child. Both Freud and Adler explained with equal fluency. Freud explained that the first man suffered from repression and the second achieved sublimation whilst Adler stated that the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority and so did the second. It is precisely their universal fit that denounced both Freud and Adler’s theories.
On the contrary, Einstein’s theory was not only refutable, but also testable. Einstein’s theory stated that light is attracted to heavy bodies, subsequently, stars located close to the sun would seem to shift slightly away from the sun. Einstein’s theory was tested by comparing two photographs, one taken during an eclipse and the other taken on a normal night. The results yielded in Einstein’s favor and thus validated. Additionally, consider the incredible risk Einstein took for taking on this test as if results were incompatible, his theory would have been refuted, not to mention the contradictory of observations done prior to testing.
Popper’s theory seemed adequate, at the time his book “Conjectures and Refutations” was published, his Principle of Falsifiability was widely accepted; however, it was invalidated for its incompleteness later by Paul Thagard. Thagard, unlike Popper, believed in a multivariable approach as opposed to a mono criterion. Thagard believes that there are three factors that determine whether a theory is scientific or pseudoscientific. First, the theoretical element concerns the principles of verification and falsification. Secondly, it involves the community of advocates for the theory, the community of practitioners, and, importantly, their attitude and response to presented anomalies that may contradict the predictions. This concerns the practitioner's overall agreement upon theory principles and methodological problem solving, responsiveness and explanatory willingness to contradictory anomalies, and theory development activity. Lastly, its historical context, its evolution over time in dealing with contradictions, and the availability of alternative theories play a role. Essentially, if a theory is less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners make little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations, the theory would be deemed pseudoscientific.
Thagard validates his new refined principle through astrology. Thagard explains astrology has been extremely unprogressive having added nothing to its explanatory power since the time of Ptolemy. It has numerous other alternatives, including Popper’s reference Freudian psychology, who are more progressive and explain anomalies within astrology. Furthermore, the community of astrologers are generally unconcerned with advancing astrology to solve newly presented anomalies, and thus marking astrology as pseudoscientific.
Thagard reasons that if Popper's principle were used in the context of astrology, it wouldn’t mark astrology as pseudoscientific as according to Thagard, falsifiability is only a matter of replaceability and since astrology is in principle replaceable by another theory, Popper’s criterion doesn’t reject astrology as pseudoscientific. Thagard also reasons that a theory may appear to be scientific during a certain time period as there may be no other ‘better’ alternatives; that is so to say astrology may have been scientific prior to the discovery and development of modern psychology.
Scientific Revolution
Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work, “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions” introduces the concept of scientific revolution through his concept of ‘paradigms’. He defines a paradigm as a set of shared beliefs, values, methods, and exemplars that provide a framework for scientific inquiry within a specific field which determine worthwhile inquiries, appropriate methodologies, and data interpretation.
Kuhn explains scientific revolution as the consequence of accumulative unsolved anomalies in a scientific paradigm; and in striving to solve these paradigms, three possibilities may occur: continued construction, further articulation, or the formation of a complete new theory. This period of progress is what Kuhn calls scientific revolution. Kuhn supports this claim with the transition from Newtonian to Einstienian physics, which indicates scientific revolution to be not merely accumulation of knowledge but rather the displacement of a conceptual network that alters our understanding of reality. Kuhn also argues the basis of scientific revolution isn’t just based on empirical evidence or logic but rather encompasses a multitude of other factors including the scientific communities’ common beliefs, values, and practices. He highlights the influence of persuasion and emotional appeal, the dynamic education and training system, as well as present social, cultural climates and technological advancements. Kuhn also considers the reason for restricted radical evolution due to resistance by way of negligence from scientists due to possible vested interest.
コメント