|
Originally Posted by davobrosia
Let me take a crack at it.
The scientific method established a framework in which one could undertake to explain natural phenomena in (ideally) a wholly objective manner. The goal of science is complete divorce from philosophy. Both disciplines undertake to produce a “theory of everything” to completely describe the nature of the universe. However, science is limited by several presuppositions. Most prominently, the scientific method is presupposed as valid. Like quoting the Bible to prove the Bible, the scientific method cannot be used to prove its own validity and accuracy. If there is an explanation of all things, scientists cannot find it from within the framework of the scientific method.
Another presupposition of science is that the world is physical and objective. This assumption implies that there is an objective reality that exists independently of observation and that only physical phenomena exist. Philosophers debate the claim that the world is physical; the questioning of this (and every) scientific presupposition is possible in philosophy, while in science it must be accepted for the scientific process to remain functional. This presupposition limits science, as many things are seemingly intangible, yet undeniably real.
Science presupposes that everything known is measurable and publicly observable. That is, the world is objective and thus can be measured by anyone. Science presupposes that known things are not subjective, in that human perception does not affect the nature of reality, so that every observed instance of a phenomenon should yield the same conclusion.
The inherent problem with this presupposition is that it excludes the purely subjective, such as the mind. Thoughts and feelings are private to each subject, and cannot be measured objectively by an external observer. The human brain is distinct from the mind. The brain is the physical object that resides in the human skull. Chemical reactions take place in the brain, and brain cells have no intentionality . the relationship between mental acts and the physical world. As they are purely physical entities that operate and communicate through electric impulses, neurons lack intentionality. The mind is not of or about something as thoughts and emotions are. These impulses and chemical reactions are not the mind, but the brain. However, the mind emerges from these as a distinct entity. The brain (and the body as a whole) and external stimuli affect the processes of the mind, but do not define it. Mental states exhibit intentionality; that is, feelings such as love are about objects, but are not themselves found anywhere in the brain. Consciousness is not objectively measurable.
Like the mind, there are other things that undeniably exist, but do not lend themselves to public observability. Dark matter, superstrings, quarks, and the fundamental forces of the universe are not publicly observable. For instance, gravity cannot be seen or measured, only the effect of its pull on objects. The Large Hadron Collider may change this. We'll see.
Science aims to move away from human observation of phenomena because subjective interpretation of data defeats the goal of public observability. Individual perceptions skew and distort scientific findings, as each observer has different attitudes and feelings about the external world. In order to retain public observability, scientists seek a so-called “ideal observer,” an impartial, totally objective observer. In seeking this ideal observer, scientists hope to safeguard against the possibility of individual perception influencing investigation. They use machines and instruments such as thermometers, speedometers, scales, and clocks to aid in this endeavor.
These machines do not measure the subjective. For example, thermometers do not measure the “hotness” or “coldness” of something, but rather they measure the physical effects something has on a temperature sensor (such as mercury) and provide a means by which to quantify these effects, normally a temperature scale in degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius. Colors are not composed of “colorness” (“redness,” “blueness,” etc) but of different wavelengths of light. The brain does not perceive “red,” it perceives wavelengths and frequencies that the mind interprets as red. Cameras and film emulate the human eye in picking up only the waves of light, not actual colors as only the mind perceives. Light wavelengths are measurable, thus science measures not the color of objects, but the wavelengths of the light they reflect. Sounds are what the mind makes of sound waves that vibrate the eardrums, which are just biological tools to measure sound waves. Microphones do not pick up sounds themselves, only the waves they generate. These waves are quantifiable, while the sound of Tom Waits’ voice is not. There is no sound without the mind’s interpretation.
The ideal observer does not observe things like “hotness” and “coldness,” or “colorness,” or what something “sounds like,” but instead the physical effects of these things. This ensures that observations are not distorted by perception, and can be replicated and observed by anyone. The problem is that there is no truly ideal observer. The mere act of perception influences an inexorable human subjective bias into observations.
Kuhn views science as a subjective study, in that each view is just as good as any other. He believes that science is equally correct for each historical period; there is no universal or trans-historical method for choosing between basic theories. Kuhn asserts that each scientific paradigm justifies its own method of truth, that each period has its own historical integrity. The traditional view of science is that there is an objective world, that there are universal truths, that scientists are progressively advancing to these truths, and that scientists overcome superstitions, errors, and myths. Kuhn disagrees with this view, claiming that there is no objective world, that there are no timeless truths, and that scientists are getting no closer to truth. For example, Kuhn would argue that the phlogiston theory of fire is just as valid as the oxygen theory of fire. Both are myths, he would argue, and both are good in that they organize the world. Kuhn criticizes “normal” science, as it defends its presuppositions against all opposition, which suppresses novelties. This science of universities, laboratories, and textbooks is a process of vindicating basic theories and protecting its basic paradigms.
Peirce, originator of pragmatism, would agree with Kuhn's view of science. Peirce believes that the truth of a concept or theory is irrelevant unless it is worthy, as determined by how well it explains and predicts phenomena. In this view, if an ancient theory accurately explains a phenomenon and makes accurate predictions about it, then Peirce would consider the theory worthy, whether or not it reflects reality. The correspondence theory of truth states that a proposition or sentence is true if a fact with corresponding elements exists. In other words, it states that truth reflects reality. In contrast, the coherence theory of truth states that the truth of a proposition is determined by its coherence with a set of propositions. Basically, a proposition's truth is determined by whether it can be placed into a larger system of propositions. A scientist first and philosopher second, Peirce believes that the truth of a proposition can be found in its effects. Peirce disagrees somewhat with the correspondence theory of truth, as its statements of truth are simply nominal definitions, definitions in name only. However, he agrees with the necessity of a truth's verifiability. He agrees with the coherence theory in that it stresses the importance of a truth fitting into a system. Scientific truths are discovered through interaction with the world, and scientific propositions fit into a group of other propositions, all verifiable by examining their concordance with reality.
A scientific law is a true generalization that makes the world intelligible. Scientific laws are statements of uniformity or consistency that are broad in scope and well supported by empirical data. They explain events by showing them as particular instances of a general and fundamental truth. For example, if one observes water pipes bursting during a freeze, one might explain this event with the statement that water expands when turning to ice. This law gives order to an otherwise chaotic and meaningless experience. Experience in itself is unintelligible. The problem science faces with scientific laws is as follows: scientific laws make experience intelligible and coherent, but unless experience is already coherent, is it possible to arrive at scientific law?
|
08-21-2008, 09:58 PM
The Scientific Method and objective reality
Linear Mode
