AK/NATS 1850 6.0A

Lecture 4
Social Organizations of Knowledge

REALMS:

Science, Pseudoscience, Proto-science, Non-Science, Bad Science, Failed Science;
Metaphysics, Theology, Mythology, Paranormal, Marginal (to what?) Knowledge Systems.
Each one of these areas is a "knowledge system" | marginal or mainstream.
What is normal? Goal of science to find out. Jut as you need to know science to know pseudo-science, you need to know normal to know anything that is not normal.
Science = knowing (verb - dynamic) or knowledge (noun - static). Pseudo sciences will often attack on the static front, while scientists will fight back on the static and dynamic fronts.

Science's Axioms

1. There is a real and knowable universe
2. The universe acts according to certain understandable rules (laws).
3. These laws are immutable (personal independence)
4. These laws can be discerned, studies, and understood through observation, experimentation, and research.

  • You can claim that these axioms are false and decide not to "play by the rules", as it were. I suggest that that is a poor choice.

    • Information gathering

    1. directly: 5 senses. (= observation)
    2. indirectly: friends, relatives, teachers, media.

    Types of Thought

    Theoretical
    Observational


    Empirical
    Rational
    Abstractive



    Induction
    Deduction
    a,b = "observational terms" or "empirical categories" --> facts
    c,d = ideas or concepts

    empirical: association or cause pseudosciences etc.
    rational: uses logic or mathematics mathematics, philosophy
    abstractive: selective definition (narrowing) "hard-core" sciences
    a-->b=empiricism; c-->d-->b=religion; a-->b-->d=mysticism;
    a-->b-->c-->d-->a=science: "rational connections that correspond to observational connections" and vice versa

    empiricism is not bad: rules of thumb, categorization of particulars
    scientific method, however, transcends particulars to relate dissimilars. (billiard ball and a rocket)

    Empirical science: a1-->a2-->a3-->A4     limit is categories
    Scientific Science: b1-->b2-->C-->D-->b3-->b4     cyclical

    Causality

    acorns cause oaks, but pigs eat acorns. Therefore, acorns do not always cause oaks
    empirical mode of thought. Science would narrow to exclude pigs.

    Similarly, correlation ­ cause. --> ice cream in the summer and colds.

  • People are particularly bad at determining the difference between a correlation and a cause.

    Huxley:2 using the term "law" as a causal idea (as in jurisprudence): "Gravity. it's not just a good idea, its the law. Suggests we have the option to do otherwise.

  • Law of gravitation is a description, not an explanation.
    this error 'in the case of a person engaged in scientific pursuits, do[es] little harm, because it is corrected as soon as its consequences become obvious; while those who know physical science only by name areÉ easily led to build a mighty fabric of unrealities on this fundamental fallacy. In fact, the habitual use of the word "law," in the sense of an active thing, is almost mark of pseudo-science; it characterizes the writings of those who have appropriated the forms of science without knowing anything of its substance.'

    Aristotleian Induction

    Aristotle (384-322BC) Alexander the Great's teacher.
    observations --> logic. No experimentation
    defined syllogisms, premises, methods of logic when dealing with observations.

    Baconian Induction

    New Atlantis: "The end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of human empires, to the effecting of all things possible."
    empirical observation and experiment
    then induce the correct theory.
    For Bacon, this foundation on the observable, physical world distinguished scientists from theologians or pseudo-scientists.
    "Great Insaturation": the belief that the Christian civilization was approaching the final judgment is associated with the belief that the millennium would be accompanied by the advancement of learning and the dominion of man over nature."
    Science needed to be cleared of "frivolous disputations, confutations and verbosities" of philosophers who based everything on a priori ideas derived from Plato and Aristotle.
    It also need to be cleared of "blind experimenting and auricular tradition and impostures" that is, people who believe what they see and hear w/o checking. Similarly, the "impostures" had no method to their science.
    He was also not an atheist, but felt there was no room for god (=miraculous) in the explanation of science. - both dealt with different parts of reality (natural/supernatural), and both had different methods.
    As for observation, we must purge out minds of preconceptions and ideas that could influence what we see. But if we do that successfully, we can perceive the world through direct sensory perception. Baconian Problems:
    1. we never perceive the world 'cold' - there is always a theory behind out perception of 'what' we are seeing.
    2. Bacon never explains how we get from the limited cases in his observational induction of a general 'law' of nature.
    3. B. Induction can only yield generalizations ('all metals expand when heated') Ð not over-arching theories about, e.g., atomic structure or the origins of the solar system.
    4. no mention of mathematics and abstracted reasoning.
    5. takes some fundamental assumptions for granted: knowable, predictable, uniform. OK in the long run, but other worldviews have these and he does not deal with them.
    6. takes no account of the social organization of science - or at least that some social organization must exist (i.e. Renaissance Europe)

    Popperian Falsification

    KARL POPPER (1902-199X[?]) came up with the notion of falsification.
    By the end of the 19thC it became clear that much of science was not coming directly from sense-observation, esp. in physics.
    Science had developed all sorts of models of the world which were convenient analogies for the reality we were seeing. These models/analogies/metaphorical devices were (and are) "true" but they cannot be said to 'exist' in nature. (ex. light is a wave and a particle)
    Therefore, scientists are not just passive observers, but take an active and creative role in constructing the world of science theories.
    First attacked B.Prob#2 (limited observations Ð> general law)
    Therefore, inference (induction), is not the rule: conjecture is. And these conjectures will come from anywhere but the direct observation. Instead, analogy, imagination, negatively controlled by the facts.
    Conjecture --> Refutation --> Falsification. Facts do not tell us what is true, they tell us what is not true (i.e. false)
    This is where sciences and pseudosciences part company. Psuedosciences only look for confirmation and ignore or explain away falsifications (assuming that they are correct or "true"), whereas sciences are happy to have confirmation, but always look for the falsifications. (interestingly, Popper was led to this idea by watching Marxists in eh 1930s follow the pseudo- methodology).
    Popperian Science mirrors a liberal democratic political ideology = open system. Always open to refutation and chance
    But as always it is not quite so clear cut. Often some theories cannot be falsified or proven true bec. evidence is ambiguous. Often there is some evidence that is inconsistent, but there is no better theory to explain those consistent facts and the inconsistent ones. So, the theory is "remanded over" until such time as a determination can be made (JSO) Example: some early "falsifications" of Copernicus were later shown to be instrumental deficiencies - so theory was not falsified by one single negative case.

    Kuhnian Paradigms

    Thomas Kuhn (1922-1997) - philosopher of science
    Noted that while quantum mechanics makes sense to us, Newtonian mechanics made sense to them, and Aristotelian physics made sense to them. Therefore, there is not slow accretion of facts and theories, but large shifts at some time or another (usually associated with the great names)
    The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) - proposed paradigm shifts. deals with "facts", "problems", and "paradigms".
    Tells the scientists what the universe contains and how they should or should not behave. "Roadmap to science" : spectacles of science
    Normal Science (Mopping Up) --> Crisis Science --> Paradigm Shift --> "New" Normal Science

    While it may be contended that is the next paradigm, there is no way to know that, and no reasonable reason to accept it without evidence.

    Question of superiority of successive paradigms.

    Historical Relativism

    we define the norms of "science" or "truth" in each generation. True, but you cannot do so without evidence. It is cases where belief is non-evidential that get you into trouble.

    Knowledge and Certainty

    we all need certainty in out lives (factual, moral): cause of today's trouble.
    we feel betrayed by the lack of certainty in science that we told them it should have.
    "heavy weight of little uncertainty" - small uncertainties make it seem unscientific -
    Creationism, fluoridation, smoking - issues with statistical probability
    on the other hand, little uncertainty can lead to certainty in the face of other forces: powerlines and leukemia
    technology[=science] --> change --> uncertainty --> risk. Therefore, science=risk.
    reversal of science --> betrayal bec. science is supposed to be progressive. this discredits scientists. pseudoscientists, however, are never shown to be wrong (but obviously, not right, either).

    Dr. Samuel Johnson: "The fact that there is such a thing as twilight does not mean that we cannot distinguish between day and night."