Fallibilism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Rescher
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Natural Science ◽  
Charles Sanders Peirce ◽  
Theoretical Physics ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Scientific Claims ◽  
Knowledge Claims ◽  
Philosophical Doctrine

Fallibilism is a philosophical doctrine regarding natural science, most closely associated with Charles Sanders Peirce, which maintains that our scientific knowledge claims are invariably vulnerable and may turn out to be false. Scientific theories cannot be asserted as true categorically, but only as having some probability of being true. Fallibilists insist on our inability to attain the final and definitive truth regarding the theoretical concerns of natural science – in particular at the level of theoretical physics. At any rate, at this level of generality and precision each of our accepted beliefs may turn out to be false, and many of them will. Fallibilism does not insist on the falsity of our scientific claims but rather on their tentativity as inevitable estimates: it does not hold that knowledge is unavailable here, but rather that it is always provisional.

When science becomes too easy: Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1003-1018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Scharrer ◽  
Yvonne Rupieper ◽  
Marc Stadtler ◽  
Rainer Bromme
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
General Public ◽  
Important Task ◽  
Division Of Cognitive Labor ◽  
Science Popularization ◽  
Scientific Claims ◽  
Knowledge Claims ◽  
Lay Public

Science popularization fulfills the important task of making scientific knowledge understandable and accessible for the lay public. However, the simplification of information required to achieve this accessibility may lead to the risk of audiences relying overly strongly on their own epistemic capabilities when making judgments about scientific claims. Moreover, they may underestimate how the division of cognitive labor makes them dependent on experts. This article reports an empirical study demonstrating that this “easiness effect of science popularization” occurs when laypeople read authentic popularized science depictions. After reading popularized articles addressed to a lay audience, laypeople agreed more with the knowledge claims they contained and were more confident in their claim judgments than after reading articles addressed to expert audiences. Implications for communicating scientific knowledge to the general public are discussed.

H. COLLINS'S PROJECT FOR DEVELOPING A RELATIVISTIC EMPIRICAL PROGRAMME IN SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE

2020 ◽  
pp. 40-44
Author(s):  
Nadezhda Nikolina
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Natural Science ◽  
Sociology Of Science ◽  
Main Idea ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Modern Natural ◽  
Modern Natural Science ◽  
Experimental Process ◽  
Issue Knowledge

The main idea of the project discussed in the article is that the production of scientific knowledge is not only an experimental process. Convention among scientists is played a special role in the acceptance of theory. To demon-strate this idea, H. Collins and co-authors of the relativistic empirical programme in the sociology of science publish a special issue “Knowledge and Controversy: Studies of Modern Natural Science”. The results obtained by the authors are discussed in this article.

How Do Individuals Think About Knowledge and Knowing?

2021 ◽  
pp. 97-121
Author(s):  
Gale M. Sinatra ◽  
Barbara K. Hofer
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Epistemic Cognition ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
New Information ◽  
Scientific Claims ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Source Of Information ◽  
Reasoning About Knowledge

In everyday encounters with new information, conflicting ideas, and claims made by others, one has to decide who and what to believe. Can one trust what scientists say? What’s the best source of information? These are questions that involve thinking and reasoning about knowledge, or what psychologists call “epistemic cognition.” In Chapter 5, “How Do Individuals Think About Knowledge and Knowing?,” the authors explain how public misunderstanding of scientific claims can often be linked to misconceptions about the scientific enterprise itself. Drawing on their own research and that of others, the authors explain how individuals’ thinking about knowledge influences their science doubt, resistance, and denial. They explain how educators and communicators can enhance public understanding of science by emphasizing how scientific knowledge is created and evaluated and why it should be valued.

Scientific realism and antirealism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Fine
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
The Other ◽  
Empirical Adequacy ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Dual Character ◽  
Objects Of Knowledge ◽  
The One ◽  
Independent Existence

Traditionally, scientific realism asserts that the objects of scientific knowledge exist independently of the minds or acts of scientists and that scientific theories are true of that objective (mind-independent) world. The reference to knowledge points to the dual character of scientific realism. On the one hand it is a metaphysical (specifically, an ontological) doctrine, claiming the independent existence of certain entities. On the other hand it is an epistemological doctrine asserting that we can know what individuals exist and that we can find out the truth of the theories or laws that govern them. Opposed to scientific realism (hereafter just ‘realism’) are a variety of antirealisms, including phenomenalism and empiricism. Recently two others, instrumentalism and constructivism, have posed special challenges to realism. Instrumentalism regards the objects of knowledge pragmatically, as tools for various human purposes, and so takes reliability (or empirical adequacy) rather than truth as scientifically central. A version of this, fictionalism, contests the existence of many of the objects favoured by the realist and regards them as merely expedient means to useful ends. Constructivism maintains that scientific knowledge is socially constituted, that ‘facts’ are made by us. Thus it challenges the objectivity of knowledge, as the realist understands objectivity, and the independent existence that realism is after. Conventionalism, holding that the truths of science ultimately rest on man-made conventions, is allied to constructivism. Realism and antirealism propose competing interpretations of science as a whole. They even differ over what requires explanation, with realism demanding that more be explained and antirealism less.

Not Published Is Not Perished: Addressing Publication Bias in Meta-Analytic Studies in Communication

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 300-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ye Sun ◽  
Zhongdang Pan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Knowledge Claims ◽  
Current Practices

Abstract Publication bias has been recognized as a threat to the validity of meta-analytic findings and scientific knowledge in general. Given the recent rise in meta-analytic research in communication, how well publication bias concerns are addressed by communication meta-analysts merits attention. In this essay, after a brief overview of publication bias and some major methods of assessment, we provide a systematic review of meta-analyses published in six major communication journals between 2005 and 2018. The review focuses on two aspects of addressing publication bias in meta-analyses: (a) reducing the potential impact of bias via an inclusive literature search; and (b) empirically assessing the extent and impact of bias in meta-analytic findings. Our review shows that the current practices in communication meta-analyses are inadequate in both aspects. We offer recommendations on ways of improving practices in meta-analyses, as well as in research and publication processes, to better safeguard knowledge claims.

W.E.B. Du Bois and interdisciplinarity: A comprehensive picture of the scholar’s approach to natural science

2020 ◽  
pp. 1468795X2093862
Author(s):  
Jordan Fox Besek ◽  
Patrick Trent Greiner ◽  
Brett Clark
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Natural Science ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Scientific Racism ◽  
Sociological Approach ◽  
Du Bois ◽  
Critical Engagement ◽  
Comprehensive Picture ◽  
Socially Situated

Throughout his life, W.E.B. Du Bois actively engaged the scientific racism infecting natural sciences and popular thought. Nevertheless, he also demonstrated a sophisticated and critical engagement with natural science. He recognized that the sciences were socially situated, but also that they addressed real questions and issues. Debate remains, however, regarding exactly how and why Du Bois incorporated such natural scientific knowledge into his own thinking. In this article, we draw on archival research and Du Bois’ own scholarship to investigate his general approach to interdisciplinarity. We address how and why he fused natural scientific knowledge and the influence of physical environs into his social science, intertwining each with his broader intellectual and political aims. This investigation will offer a fuller understanding of the scope and aims of his empirical scholarship. At the same time, it will illuminate a sociological approach to natural science that can still inform scholarship today.

A New Vision of Science

1998 ◽  
pp. 363-367
Author(s):  
Fritz Wallner
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Relative Validity ◽  
Scientific Claims ◽  
New Vision ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Given

Traditional convictions regarding science (such as universalism, necessity and eternal validity) are currently in doubt. Relativism seems to destroy scientific claims to rationality. This paper shows a way to keep the traditional convictions of scientific knowledge while acknowledging relativism. With reference to the practicing scientist, we replace descriptivism with constructivism; we modify relative validity with the claim to understanding; and, we offer methodological strategies for acquiring understanding. These strategies we call strangification, which means taking a scientific proposition system out of its context and putting it in another context. We can thus see the implicit presuppositions of the given proposition system by means of the problems arising out of the application of this procedure. Such a change in the understanding of science holds important consequences.

Social Organization of Science

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Carrier
Keyword(s):  
Social Organization ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Social Epistemology ◽  
Social Roles ◽  
Scientific Communities ◽  
Science Section ◽  
The Social ◽  
Organization Of Science ◽  
Knowledge Claims

The social organization of science as a topic of philosophy of science mostly concerns the question of which kinds of social organization are most beneficial to the epistemic aspirations of science. Section 1 addresses the interaction among scientists for improving epistemic qualities of knowledge claims in contrast to the mere accumulation of contributions from several scientists. Section 2 deals with the principles that are supposed to organize this interaction among scientists such that well-tested and well-confirmed knowledge is produced. Section 3 outlines what is supposed to glue scientific communities together and how society at large is assumed to affect the social organization of these communities. Section 4 attends to social epistemology (i.e., to attempts to explore the influence of social roles and characteristics on the system of scientific knowledge and confirmation practices).

scholarly journals THE RELATIONSHIP WITH SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IN BASIC EDUCATION: THE PERSPECTIVE OF STUDENTS

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 39-46
Author(s):  
Cláudia Valentina Assumpção Galian ◽  
Lucia Helena Sasseron ◽  
Maria Ligia Borba Florenzano ◽  
Agnaldo Arroio
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Natural Science ◽  
Basic Education ◽  
Sao Paulo ◽  
Education Student ◽  
São Paulo ◽  
Natural Science Education ◽  
The Relationship

This article reports the work carried out with a group of six students in two public schools in the State of São Paulo, within a project Pre-Iniciação Científica (Scientific Research Initiation) conducted at Faculty of Education, University of São Paulo, along the year 2011. These students conducted a survey in their schools in order to identify the relationship which their colleagues setting out with knowledge on the scientific disciplines. Thus it is assumed as objective for this study to drive a reflection concerning the views of students who complete basic education in public schools about the basic scientific knowledge who have had access throughout their school trajectories and drive some directions for police makers about natural science education policies. Key words: educational policies, natural science education, student´s view.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document