The Moderate Fallibilism of Science

1970 ◽  
pp. 79-128
Author(s):  
Francis E. Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Reliable Method ◽  
Adequate Representation ◽  
The Universe

This chapter considers how valuable scientific knowledge is, and how certain and permanent is the knowledge gained through this method. Peirce repeatedly and firmly asserts that scientific knowledge is not a completely certain and adequate representation of its object. Science never achieves the final and absolute formulation of the universe. Pierce calls the acknowledgment of this necessary limitation of scientific knowledge “fallibilism.” It is an attitude of reserve toward science, a deliberate withholding of a complete and final commitment toward the achievements of the scientific method. At the same time, there is a spirit of confidence in science, and an assurance that science really does converge on the truth. Peircean fallibilism, then, is not a complete distrust of scientific knowledge. Rather it is tempered by the reasoned conviction that scientific knowledge is the best knowledge we have, and that the method of the sciences is the only reliable method of settling opinion, hence why his attitude is considered a “moderate fallibilism.” This chapter considers the moderate fallibilism of science as a consequent of the method of the sciences, and of the object which the sciences study, namely, the universe.

Which is the Best Model of the Universe?

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 152-169
Author(s):  
Martin Sahlén
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Model Comparison ◽  
Value Judgments ◽  
Statistical Framework ◽  
Philosophy Of Cosmology ◽  
Ultimate Explanation ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Framework Model ◽  
Fertile Ground ◽  
The Universe

Modern scientific cosmology pushes the boundaries of knowledge and the knowable. This is prompting questions on the nature of scientific knowledge, and the emergence of the new field “Philosophy of Cosmology.” One central issue is what defines a “good” model. I discuss how “good” models are conventionally chosen, and how those methods operate in data-sparse situations: enabling the implicit introduction of value judgments, which can determine inference and lead to inferential polarization, e.g., on the question of ultimate explanation. Additional dimensions for comparing models are needed. A three-legged comparison is proposed: evidence, elegance and beneficence. This explicitly considers the categories of criteria that are always at least implicitly used. A tentative path to an implementation of the proposed model comparison framework is presented. This extends the Bayesian statistical framework. Model comparison methodology is fertile ground for dialogue between the sciences and the humanities. The proposed framework might facilitate such a dialogue.

Scientific Studies of Dreams and Dreaming in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgia Morgese
Keyword(s):  
19Th Century ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Psychological Study ◽  
The 19Th Century

In the second half of the 19th century, the study of the phenomenon of the dream was undertaken with “scientific” method, by physicians, physiologists, and psychiatrists before the birth of the “myth” advanced by Freud who claimed for psychoanalysis the birthright of the psychological study of dreams. The article highlights the long and varied process of obtaining scientific knowledge of dreams and the dreaming process, and sheds light on researchers and traditions that have not received as much attention as they should have.

Is There Scientific Method In Creationism Madness?

1984 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 3-26
Author(s):  
David R. Schwimmer
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Natural Phenomena ◽  
Positive Approach ◽  
Creation Science ◽  
Occam’S Razor ◽  
Hypothesis Theory ◽  
Logical Fallacies ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Occam's Razor

While no consensus exists among philosophers of science on a definition and paradigm for the “Scientific Method,” certain principles and methods of inquiry are nearly universal among working scientists and constitute a minimum framework for the concept. These include: the use of logic and Occam's Razor, objectivity, a positive approach to knowledge (i.e. that the universe is knowable and the knowledge should be obtained), and at least implicit application of the hypothesis/theory/law/fact hierarchy of generalization. Investigations of natural phenomena within these parameters may be termed “scientific” and, conversely, the circumvention of even one essential principle should remove the cachet of “Science.”A sample of “Creation Science” literature is examined to determine whether it adheres to the minimum “Scientific Method” described. Examination reveals that, indeed, all of the enumerated criteria are violated. Objectivity and the positive approach to knowledge are flouted overtly in several documents, whereas logical fallacies, violations of Occam's Razor, and misapplications of the heirarchy of generalization are rampant among (and intrinsic to) “Creationist” arguments, but typically must be ferreted out. Most distressful logical fallacies are non-factual statements, false assumptions, anachronisms, and a set of novel errors which may be termed “apparent scientism” (e.g. the citation of nonrefereed polemical writings, using conventional journal format). It is concluded that the methodological bankruptcy evidenced in materials examined removes the philosophy espoused from “Science” and leaves only the “Creationist” component.

Power and Knowledge in Psychiatry and the Troubling Case of Dr Osheroff

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Robertson
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Narrative Form ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Forms Of Knowledge

Objective: To consider the state of knowledge in psychiatry with reference to the ‘Osheroff debate’ about the treatment of depression. Method: A review of the key philosophical issues regarding the nature of knowledge applied to the Osheroff case. Results: There is an apparent dichotomy between knowledge derived from a reductionist scientific method, as manifest in evidence-based medicine, and that of a narrative form of knowledge derived from clinical experience. The Focauldian notion of knowledge/power and knowledge as discourse suggests that scientific knowledge dominates over narrative knowledge in psychiatry. The implication of this applied to the Osheroff case is the potential annihilation of all forms of knowledge other than science. Conclusions: Knowledge in psychiatry is a pluralist, rather than singularly scientific enterprise. In the Osheroff case, the potential for scientific knowledge to abolish other forms of knowledge posed a serious threat of weakening the profession. In the light of the current debate about best practice, there is a need for reconsideration of the implications of Osheroff.

Popper and Reliabilism

1995 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 31-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Lipton
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Reliable Method ◽  
True Belief ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Karl Popper ◽  
Deductive Inference ◽  
Inductive Support ◽  
Radical Scepticism ◽  
Analysis Of Knowledge

Karl Popper attempted to give an account of scientific research as the rational pursuit of the truth about nature without any appeal to what he took to be the fictitious notion of non-demonstrative or inductive support. Deductive inference can be seen to be inference enough for science, he claimed, once we appreciate the power of data to refute theory. Many of the standard objections to Popper's account purport to show that his deductivism actually entails a radical scepticism about the possibility of scientific knowledge. Some of these objections appear unanswerable in the context of the traditional analysis of knowledge as justified true belief; but this is neither a conception of knowledge that Popper himself accepted nor one that is currently in fashion. Reliabilism, the view that knowledge is a true belief generated by a reliable method, is now a popular replacement for the traditional analysis and one that is closer to Popper's own conception of knowledge. My aim in this essay is to consider in brief compass the prospects of a reliabilist reading of Popper's account of science. Such a reading makes it possible to turn some of the standard objections and helps to show which of Popper's views should be accepted and which rejected.

scholarly journals Perkembangan Eksperimen Fisika Ditinjau dari Filsafat Sains

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-20
Author(s):  
Ike Festiana
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Experimental Methods ◽  
Independent Experiment ◽  
Classical Physics ◽  
Scientific Issue ◽  
World Development

Scientific knowledge as well as experiment keeps on growing every day.  Experiments flourished in the seventeenth century. Previously, information about world development was obtained by connecting the roles of prominent epistemology. Experimentation is defined as a planned program for restoring hypotheses by providing empirical evidence to people. Science is a process of seeking the truth. Activities in finding the truth involves a series of scientific method including experiment. The development of physics history is divided into five periods. Period one is indicated by the absence of systematic and independent experiment. In period two, experimental methods had been accountable, and well accepted as a scientific issue. In period three, (investigations developed more rapidly when classical physics development began to be foundation of current famous quantum physics). Period four which is called The Old Quantum Mechanics is indicated by the invention of microscopic phenomena. Period five is well known by the emergence of new quantum mechanics theory.

scholarly journals TEACHING THE NATURE OF SCIENCE THROUGH STORYTELLING: SOME EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM A GRADE 9 CLASSROOM

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yannis Hadzigeorgiou
Keyword(s):  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Cultural Dimension ◽  
Creative Activity ◽  
Explicit Teaching ◽  
History Of ◽  
Understanding Of Science

The instructional question of how to teach ideas about the nature of science effectively has been a challenge, but, according to the literature, explicit teaching appears to be the best way. However, the use of narratives, which incorporate actual events from the history of science, can also help illustrate the human and the larger socio-cultural context in which scientific knowledge was developed. Such context facilitates students’ understanding of science as a human endeavour, which is characterized by successes and failures as well as problems and struggles. It makes them aware of the fact that scientific knowledge is tied to human hopes, expectations, passions, and ambitions. Moreover, the use of narratives can help students understand such ideas as: scientific knowledge, while durable, is tentative and subject to revision, people of both sexes and from many countries have contributed to the development of science, science is a creative activity, science has a socio-cultural dimension, and also that there is not a standard scientific method, as scientists use a variety of approaches to explain the natural world. A recent empirical study provides evidence that such ideas can indeed be understood by 9th graders.

Identifying and solving scientific problems in the medicine: key to become a competent scientist

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Duygu Aydemir ◽  
Nuriye Nuray Ulusu
Keyword(s):  
Lifelong Learning ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Crucial Step ◽  
Scientific Problem ◽  
Multifactorial Diseases ◽  
Scientific Questions ◽  
Day By Day

AbstractThe scientific method can be described as a multistep and detailed process, in which finding the best question is the first and most crucial step. Thus, scientific problem should be examined thoroughly in different ways and perspectives. The amount and diversity of scientific data are enormously increasing and becoming more specific day by day, therefore traditional observational biology is not sufficient on an individual basis to understand and treat multifactorial diseases. Moreover, protocols, documentations, information, outcomes, precisions, and considerations of evidence should be improved to answer scientific questions correctly during the scientific research. Because of the diversity of the data and the methods, statisticians and methodologists should be involved and contribute to the all stages of research. Besides that, all scientific data should be certainly reproducible and repeatable. Scientific knowledge is in a state of flux and becomes more complex day by day. Thus, becoming a competent scientist needs, abilities and skills such as creativity, hardworking and self-discipline that all requires lifelong learning, searching, and widening scientific horizons consistently.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document