1 / 18

The Nature of Science & Scientific Knowledge

The Nature of Science & Scientific Knowledge. *With credit/apologies to my prof Martin Nickles from whom I copied, virtually unchanged, this entire presentation. (Remember, there is no plagiarism in teaching . I.E., do what I say not what I do.). I. The Goals of Modern Science.

lev
Download Presentation

The Nature of Science & Scientific Knowledge

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Nature of Science &Scientific Knowledge *With credit/apologies to my prof Martin Nickles from whom I copied, virtually unchanged, this entire presentation. (Remember, there is no plagiarism in teaching. I.E., do what I say not what I do.)

  2. I. The Goals of Modern Science • To explain the NATURAL WORLD and how it got to be the way it is. • NOT merely to collect “facts” or describe. • Natural here means empirically sensible—that which we can detect with our senses and for which there is widespread agreement.

  3. * An empirical explanation entails detailed, precise explanations and possesses predictive power.

  4. II. The Limits of Scientific Knowledge • Limited to the natural world • Inherently uncertain to varying degrees • i.e., it is NOT absolutely, eternally, and infallibly TRUE. • This built-in uncertainty is due in part to the following assumptions:

  5. Some Assumptions of Scientific Knowledge: • The physical universe is real and exists apart from our sensory perception of it. • Humans are capable of accurately perceiving the physical universe and understanding how it operates • Natural processes are SUFFICIENT to explain or account for natural phenomena and events.

  6. Some Assumptions of Scientific Knowledge: • Nature operates UNIFORMLY in space and time (see: Lyell)

  7. Some Assumptions of Scientific Knowledge: • Scientific knowledge, (since it is based on human sensory experience of the natural world) is subject to the BIOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS OF OUR SENSES. • While technology has greatly extended the range of our senses (think of UV and infra-red light etc.) There are still limits to technological accuracy and range.

  8. Some Assumptions of Scientific Knowledge: • It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible alternative explanation. • It is probably always impossible to control for every possible variable.

  9. Scientific knowledge is contingent knowledge. • For two reasons: • 1. Scientific knowledge is evidence-based. Scientific Knowledge (including scientific explanations) is based only on available evidence, rather than on “proof” (which is indisputable and irrefutable). • 2. That evidence must be EVALUATED and INTERPRETED.

  10. Scientific knowledge is contingent knowledge. • 2. Scientific knowledge is historical. • The history of scientific knowledge is subject to modification in light of new evidence. • The questions and problems that scientists regard as interesting and important at any given time are reflective of intellectual, cultural and political considerations that change over time.

  11. HOWEVER, despite this uncertainty and tentativeness, scientific knowledge (and to a lesser extent, scientific “facts”) constitute the most reliable knowledge we can have about the natural world and how it works. Why? This is because of CRITICAL THINKING

  12. III. Critical Thinking, the Real Scientific Method • Assumptions and current knowledge (even “facts”) are subject to regular review and re-assessment—especially in light of new evidence. • Independent duplication of results is ideal.

  13. III. Critical Thinking, the Real Scientific Method • Concordant evidence is sought as support for an explanation. • Scientific knowledge is (ideally) available for public knowledge. • Expertise in knowledge is highly regarded, but there is no reliance on any absolute authority to determine “the truth.”

  14. Relativism? • So, like, any explanation is equally, like, valid—right? And truth is just a matter of opinion, and like, we can’t even say who’s right.

  15. NO! • In the absence of certainty regarding the absolute truth of scientific explanations, scientists use COMPARATIVE CRITICAL THINKING to determine which explanation is MORE LIKELY TO BE CORRECT.

  16. The Criteria of Comparative Critical Thinking • A scientific explanation (which is limited in all the ways we’ve already discussed) is considered better than another the more it…

  17. The Criteria of Comparative Critical Thinking • is consistent with known natural processes; • accounts for more data; • has fewer unexplained exceptions; • has more reliable predictive power; • accounts for previously unexplained phenomena; • is simpler; • provides a fertile field for future research.

  18. Science • We can see the history of science as a record of our scientific efforts to reduce the degree of uncertainty associated with our knowledge of the natural world. • Thus, science can be said to “progress,” but only in the negative sense of eliminating faulty explanations, and increasing our confidence in some specific scientific knowledge, and in science in general.

More Related