What is Science?

HPSC/HSTY/PHIL 111

Roi Trawon

1)

Science should be viewed is as a living being, something that morphs into a more and

more complex synthesis of past Scientific Knowledge affecting itself as it goes on. It is important

to know the stories of how Science has behaved to serve as vital evidence in the pursuit of

understanding itself: its power including all its faults and failures. It also helps us understand

human nature and how to better think about how our own precepts might be a roadblock.

The development of the Hypothesis as part of the scientific method is a complex

historical and philosophical block that should be understood within the context in which it arose.

Hypothesis for Galileo as a starting point for eccentric ideas that provides a great explanation

and evidence in the 17th century. Galileos belief in the hypothesis of the Heliocentric universe

was viewed as heresy by the Church. Bellarmine a Cardinal warned Galileo of his hypothesis but

also stated that his hypothesis is not absolute and is therefore not as aggressively against the

church.

Newton had a very different view on Hypothesis. With his famous quote Hypotheses non

fingo “I do not frame hypotheses.” But at that time hypotheses was not considered as the causes

proven from experimentation but as simply guesses and speculation. In that time his proposition

and belief in gravity would be considered a hypothesis, and a rather well-founded one. He stated

that “It is enough that gravity really exists and acts according to the laws that we have set forth

and is sufficient to explain all the motions of the heavenly bodies and of our sea.”

Understanding how the perspective of people of the value and essence of the Hypothesis as

part of Scientific exploration, is itself crucial to making a more valuable hypothesis.

2)

The dramatic duel of Priestly and Lavoisier is one that is quite compelling and a good case

study for making sense that scientific discoveries are rarely rigidly unanimous, unambiguous,

and quick. Priestly’s overthrown application of Phlogiston theory has been a relative paradigm in

their time, because it had the power of explaining some chemical observations and questions

such as how combustion behaves and how respiration works.

The shift of allegiance and a change of paradigms from this Phlogiston theory to Lavoisier

demonstrated the complexity of the momentous events leading to a scientific discovery. An

actual radical shift of perspective in chemistry happened, the nature of combustion: from viewing

it as a release of a combustible substance (phlogiston) into the air to the flame of a burning object

to Lavoisier’s theory and identification of Oxygen that evidentially answered the same question

of the behavior of combustion. This discovery of Oxygen was not merely something that was a

result of a new observation by Lavoisier. New insights of Priestly even if a lot were not accurate

are part of the pieces of a puzzle that helped with the construction of a new Paradigm.

All this uncertainty and vagueness of the squabble to pinpoint the exact moment of this

scientific discovery is undercutting the real story. Big challenges also arise in trying to pick a

side in the Chemical Revolution as to who did it better and Kuhn states those two leagues as an

occurrence of methodological incommensurability.

3)

Theory laden-ness in the scientific process proposes that scientific experimentation and

observation are bound by and affected by the theoretical beliefs of the observer and

experimenter. This happens in multiple manners such as affecting the interpretations,

perceptions, or even the focus of the experiment and observation. Therefore, there exists no

Theory-neutral observation or even a theory-neutral paradigm.

Experimentation would be highly susceptible to the biasedness of presupposed beliefs.

Aristotle believed that interfering with the natural course of nature would possibly lead to

misleading and biased answers about the nature of things.

It is not only in experimentation that is susceptible by a continuous avalanche of such

perceptions. The production of instruments and technology to be able to perform the experiment

is one such case. One might argue that since, technologies already work and are founded on the

outcomes of Scientific knowledge that these are not merely perceptions but actual working piece

of fact. But being aware and vigilant that it’s always possible that the theory-laden-ness of

experimentation and the technologies associated with it will prevent going down a rabbit hole of

Scientifically unsound conclusions.

4)

First of all, to present the argument that there is indeed progress in science, I will state my

definition of science. Science is the expansion and the pursuit of conscious ignorance. To be

conscious of your own ignorance you must decipher the paradigm and be able to acknowledge a

gap in the knowledge and questions that need to be answered. This type ignorance is not the
unenlightened, uninformed, and stubborn indifference to facts and data but rather the opposite.

Therefore, to have progress in Science, the expansion of prominent and significant discoveries

leading to well-founded paradigms and therefore more questions than what was previously

answered have to happen.

This view also coincides with Kuhn’s view of progress in science. Kuhn states that the

“development of a science is not uniform but has alternating ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ (or

‘extraordinary’) phases.” Conscious ignorance is the prelude to the shift from normal science and

revolutionary which leads to progress. It is a never ending process of Scientific progress and it is

never linear as roadblocks and crisis appears in science as it is the expression of the fallibility of

human nature.

One case study to clearly see how far the Scientific community has progressed is the

banishment of Pseudoscience such as Astrology and Scientology from the mainstream

professional science to its outskirts. These stated fields do not promote the idea of conscious

ignorance it eliminates it by establishing cult-like methodologies. It has always and will always

try to claw itself back in by an impersonation of the foundations of the Scientific method.

Demarcating a clear line between Science and Pseudoscience has been a struggle for centuries as

politics, religion, morality, etc. is being intertwined into it. But through the democratization of

science creating institutions that are more accessible and transparent and maintaining the

demarcation of real science and pseudoscience makes it a gatekeeper to the progress of science.

That, shows actual progress in science.

 It might seem obvious that science is progressing as new discoveries are made

increasingly. Progress is an inherent feature in Science, specifically normal science as Kuhn

suggested. But, in revolution and in conflict of ideologies, progress is made through the rejection

and replacement of better paradigms that best explain nature. It also therefore, made us more

conscious of our own ignorance.