Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Objectivity of science
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Objectivity of science
The following essay aims to discuss whether science is objective or subjective in light of two competing theories: inductivism and falsificationism. Addressing the main quote, I will state how Popper would respond to two of Chalmers’ core ideas, before providing my own opinions and justification on the matter.
Chalmers account of science is from an inductivist’s perspective. He believes that science is achieved through justifying universal statements from singular statements. (Chalmers, 1976) Thus, leading to believe that these statements can be proven. Falsificationists disagree with the view that scientific knowledge is proven knowledge. They reason that no number of observations will sufficiently prove a claim. On the contrary, it only requires one observation to sufficiently disprove a claim. Popper would respond that it is greater than probable that a claim will be false. He would conclude that scientific knowledge is not proven knowledge but rather the best justification of our understanding of the world at any given time.
I further this opinion of Popper; nothing in science can be seen as an unquestionable truth. It is illogical for any singular statement to be considered a universal statement. By analogy, it is illogical to presume all dogs are brown because, through observation, you’ve only ever seen brown dogs. This logic predisposes science for failure. An excellent example of such is the paradigm shift away from Newtonian physics in light of Einstein’s discoveries. Einstein presented a new context for motion that was otherwise not considered by Newton. The fact is that almost every scientific ‘truth’ to be presented throughout history has been falsified, which is an inherent flaw within the notion of induction.
...
... middle of paper ...
...r the charge of an electron was later shown to be within one-half of a percent of the currently accepted value. It can be concluded that observation cannot solely be relied upon, but rather science requires a certain amount of ingenuity in making further deductions.
In conclusion, investigating Chalmers core ideas, falsificationism was found to be far superior to induction. First, scientific knowledge is not proven knowledge. Second, science is not objective. Investigations into the place of speculative imaginings in science found that both Chalmers and Popper were conditionally correct. Investigating the question of whether science was objective or subjective found that due to limitations of observations by human kind, science is at best, subjective.
Works Cited
Chalmers, A. (1976). What is this thing called science? St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Popperian hypothetico deductivists would find several problems with the view of science Alan Chalmers stated in ‘What is this thing Called Science?’ From “Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge” to “Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven” popper would disagree to everything. With Chalmers falsificationism or hypothetico-deductivism view, his statement indicates that scientific induction is completely justifiable. However as it is now known, induction is not a reasonable way to prove or justify science.
This discussion focuses on two issues: the relationship between evidence and hypotheses; and, the role of "contextual" values in inquiry. Longino contrasts contextual values with constitutive values. The latter, the "values generated from an understanding of the goals of scientific inquiry," "are the source of the rules determining what constitutes acceptable scientific practice or scientific method" (L1990, 4). That these values influence inquiry is not a problem. But the former, "personal, social, and cultural values," are thought to threaten the integrity of scientific inquiry (L1990, 4-5).
Since the mid-20th century, a central debate in the philosophy of science is the role of epistemic values when evaluating its bearing in scientific reasoning and method. In 1953, Richard Rudner published an influential article whose principal argument and title were “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” (Rudner 1-6). Rudner proposed that non-epistemic values are characteristically required when making inductive assertions on the rationalization of scientific hypotheses. This paper aims to explore Rudner’s arguments and Isaac Levi’s critique on his claims. Through objections to Levi’s dispute for value free ideal and highlighting the importance of non-epistemic values within the tenets and model development and in science and engineering,
The Chalmers's view against the Popperian hypothetico-deductive. Popper mentioned that people shouldn't concentrate our hopes on an unacceptable principle of induction.Also, he claimed that without relying on induction we still can work out how science works and why it is rational.1 Hence, I would like to said Popper would disagree with Chalmer's opinion. Also, I think Popperian might say Chalmers is wrong because his falsifiable in Popperian sense. Chalmers might be falsified if scientific knowledge is observed not reliable due to some experiment and observation might contain mistakes and we do not find them now. Furthermore, the Popperian might argue that science can not be prove but can justify the better theories or laws.1 We can justify which scientific laws or theories are better ones as there is falsified is found, or not scientific. When they are found falsified or not scientific, we can seek for novel bold hypot...
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
Ferinad Puretz, Max. 'True Science', Review of Peter Medawar, Advice to a Young Scientist. N.p.: n.p., 1980. Print.
A.J. Ayer, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn. "Science and Non science: Defining the Boundary." Part 1. Pages 6-19. [...]
As we have established, for a theory to be classed as scientific by Popper, it must be able to be falsified. This scientific theory would rule out something that can be expressed in a basic statement. An example of this would be the “theory that all swans are white, is incompatible with the basic statement, ‘[Look], a black swan’”. Popper calls this basic statement a potential falsifier (Newton-Smith, 1981, p49). Newton-Smith (1981, pp70-71) claims that no scientific hypotheses actually contain basic statements, he uses the example of Newtonian mechanics and their consequences, and that among these predictions we will not find any basic statements. To develop testable predictions the initial conditions and auxiliary hypotheses must be defined. If we find that after our test, the prediction and result do not match, has the theory been falsified? In fact, this is viewed as an anomaly, but does this anomaly prove the theory to be false? The short answer is no. There could be a number of reasons for an anomaly to be present in the
Scientists intend to discard all subjectivity in favor of objectivity, which ultimately paves the road to knowledge. However, scientists often encounter subjectivity in their work, and the fact remains that, while its use may be justified on the grounds of expediency, the exercise of personal judgment, no matter how “professional”, is subjective and has inherent dangers. In examining the log books of Robert Milikan during his experiment with the electron, the physicist and historian Gerald Holton discovered that some of Milikan’s criteria was subjective, as revealed by comments such as, “Very low-something wrong,” and, “This is almost exactly right.” Throughout, Milikan appears to have been driven partly by a desire to get results that were self-consistent, broadly in agreement with other methods, and consistent with his personal view that the electron is Page 2 the fundamental and indivisible unit of electric charge.
Ever wonder how the world would be today only if our great researchers implemented a different attitude towards their experiments? It is possible that the results would remain same. However, some argue that the consequences may be altered. Nonetheless, this does not make the earlier learned knowledge valued less or false, just supplementary. Abraham Maslow’s theory challenges nearly all ways of knowing, suggesting that if we limit our thinking, the outcomes remain homogenous, therefore, limiting the amount of knowledge we acquire. Dilemmas are mentioned in order to repudiate from the opinions that are profoundly accepted in the society. If Newton had eaten that apple, instead of using it as a tool to apply the theory of attraction, he may not have exposed gravity. Because he had more tools than a mere hammer and he was sagacious enough to expand his philosophy beyond hunger, he made such an innovation. It is widely claimed that inventions are accidental. In fact, all the chemical elements in the famous periodic table are a result of different tactics towards scientist’s research. As ToK teaches us that there is no possible end to a situation for it is influenced by the perceptive skills of the arguers. There is never a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or the ‘ultimate answer’ in the conflict, but the eminence of rationalization is what poises the deliberation. This suggestion explains that there is always that one more way to approach the conclusion. Thus, pursuit of knowledge habitually requires dissimilar ways of knowing for it lengthens the verdict.
Science can be defined as a concept of observations and inquiries that the whole world applies depending on certain natural laws which are discovered and tested. Some academics come across ideas which have existed, they explore and test these ideas using scientific methods. These methods are based on observations or experience which compel academics into hypothesis testing (Comer, Gould, & Furnham, 2013). It is suggested that science has key
Charlesworth, M. (1982). Science, non-science & pseudo-science : Bacon, Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn and Feyerabend on defining science. Vic: Deakin University Press
Beginning with the scientific revolution in the fifteen hundreds, the Western world has become accustomed to accepting knowledge that is backed by the scientific method, a method that has been standardized worldwide for the most accurate results. This method allows people to believe that the results achieved from an experiment conducted using the scientific method have been properly and rigorously tested and must therefore be the closest to truth. This method also allows for replication of any experiment with the same results, which further solidifies the credibility and standing of natural science in the world. Another aspect that allows for the reliability on the natural sciences is the current paradigm boxes, which skew the truth to remove anomalies. This affects the outcome of experiments as the hypotheses will be molded to create results that fit the paradigm box.
Cole, K. C., and Sue Giddings. "Is There Such a Thing as Scientific Objectivity?" DISCOVER Sept. 1985: 76-78. Web.
Both articles show readers that science is not just an experimental or theoretical study. Orwell and Diamond use examples and probe questions at science; they elucidate the need to understand the role politics plays in science. Orwell address science as political by raising the question of what is science. As simple as the question seems, Orwell argues for critical thinking by stating, “The fact is that a mere training in one or more of the exact sciences, even combined with very high