Translate

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Scientific Knowledge is Falsifiable

Science prided itself of being the sole arbiter of true knowledge.  It started when many existing beliefs held by the Church were challenged by newly scientific truths discovered by scientists during the Scientific Revolution.  For example, Church authorities in Medieval times propounded the idea that earth is the center of the universe.  This was also premised in the ideas that God created the universe; man finds favour in him of all other things; so earth should be at the center in the scheme of things as man’s dwelling place.  All these strings of beliefs were somehow weaved into one system with some elements of religious beliefs through speculation without due regard to their empirical contents.  Thus, when Copernicus was able to establish the fact –with the help of new invented technology like telescope, that the sun is the center of the universe, there was a gradual change in conviction that knowledge becomes more reliable if founded in science through observation.  What is derived from speculation or faith is considered spurious; what is derived from observation is considered reliable and true. 

From then on, the rule of the day is science and its objectivity in arriving truth.  Eventually, science has become proud to be the new arbiter of truth replacing the olden days of the church.  Science has claimed infallible in its newly-found knowledge.  It cannot get wrong or mistaken of its newly-found knowledge.  Its knowledge is grounded on empirical evidence gathered through experimentation.  It has even become proud that scientific knowledge is better than any knowledge gained from speculation or faith.

However, observation alone is not enough to establish a true knowledge.  Scientists are very aware of this.  Thus, as an observer or scientist, he has to develop in him a discipline and an attitude, which are unique among scientists.  His discipline consists of being neutral in his investigation.  His attitude consists of being keen in finding the right problem, in formulating the right hypothesis, in finding sufficient evidence to support his hypothesis, and making objective conclusion.  Without his scientific discipline and attitude, his observation and finding are unreliable.  Thus, science is not only about finding objective truth but also a matter of personal discipline and an art. 

In all of its success, science has never been in its pedestal without various challenges.  One persistent challenge it encountered is its claim of infallibility –that is, science can’t get wrong of its truth-claims.  To date, there are two prominent thinkers who challenged its infallibility, namely: Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.  Kuhn’s treatment is interesting yet I shall dispense myself of not discussing it here.

Popper is famous of the “principle of falsifiability.”  In so far as science speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable.  This principle applies to any field of science such as in medical science, in physical science, in biological science, in astronomical science, and among others.  In medical science, for example, scientists claim that condom can protect users from contacting or transmitting HIV/AIDS virus or STDs but, for Popper, it must be falsifiable.  Medical scientists can get wrong of this claim.  In astronomical science, astronomers claim that there are only 8 planets in the solar system, again it is falsifiable.  Astronomers can get wrong.  All forms of scientific knowledge are practically falsifiable.  The point, however, is not that truth is untenable.  Scientific knowledge can be made certain but its process of arriving it, which is through inductive reasoning, is not that sound to establish a knowledge that can no longer be put to doubt.  Induction gives us only a probable conclusion. 

Nowadays, many experts like researchers will try to convince us that in every undertaking we take, we have to pay attention to any scientific knowledge.  Expressions like “research-based” education, “research-based” instruction, “research-based” curriculum, and so on are manifestations that science unlike any other fields gives us satisfaction to our insatiable desire for truth.

In conclusion, science is dethroned of its crowning glory as the sole arbiter of knowledge.  Scientists are dethroned too of their crowns as masters of “scientific” craft.  Whether one is an expert or not, he/she has the right to claim what he/she believes is true.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Ethical Theory of St Thomas

Tomas de Aquino.   Aquinas is not a family name.   In the tradition, if one is born to a noble family, the name of the place of his birth is...