Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
of Hercules on each side of the Strait ofpillarsin the Mediterranean Sea. The pillarsGibraltarsaid to have been inscribed with the phraseareplus ultra, which translates from the Latinne“go no further/nothing lies beyond”. Thetoone leaving and one returning, indicategalleons,act of venturing beyond the known limits oftheof the ancient world. At the bottom,knowledgeinscription of Biblical origin in Latin saysanpertransibunt et augebitur scientia: “manymultigo to and fro, and knowledge shall beshallincreased”.to the question of the power ofReturningknowledge, Bacon would havescientificimagined humanity’s dominion overprobablyrather than our domination of it.nature,I would address one general admonition to all: that…consider what are the true ends of knowledge,theythat they seek it not either for pleasure of theandor for contention, or for superiority to others, ormind,prot, or fame, or power, or any of these inferiorforbut for the benet and use of life; and that theythings:does science change over time? The differentHowto this question reveal valuable insightsanswerspractising scientists as well as those learningformake judgments about scientific claims. Ourtoof how modern science is doneunderstandingchallenged just a few decades ago, whenwasKuhn wrote The Structure of ScientificThomasin 1962, arguing that science proceedsRevolutions,periods of normalcy interrupted bythroughrather than in a linear way. Kuhnrevolutions,the term “paradigm shift” to describe theseusedthat produced new ways of thinkingrevolutionsdoing within scientific disciplines. He alsoandthat science is not as objective as wasarguedis) commonly accepted, because scientific(andare in fact defined by what a communitytruthsscientists agree to be true. This was vastlyoffrom the prevailing view of science at thedifferentoften called the “Whig history” of science,time,a heroic march towards fundamental truths,assaw the success of science as self-evidentthatandinevitable.history was a positivist philosophy of scienceWhigmarching forward heroically, adding new truths toasexisting and ever-growing stock of truths. Progressanseen as guaranteed by the scientic method andwasdid Kuhn dismiss scientific objectivity?Whyunderstand this, we must understand howTodescribed scientific change. He sawKuhnas people who accepted a paradigmscientistsaccounted for accepted truths, conceptsthatinvestigative practices (that is, they hadandenculturated into a scientific paradigm by abeencommunity). A new idea or discoveryscientificjudged by how similar it was to the existingwasand discoveries, and judgmentstheoriessimilarity are fundamentally subjective,aboutto Kuhn.accordingmight sound strange, especially becauseThisclashes with the widespread belief thatitis about objectively proving theoriesscience(falsification). Remember, Popperwrongthat a single reproducible anomaly (aarguedinconsistent with a theory) is enough toresultthe theory. Kuhn is famous because herejectthat science does not work that way,showedanomalies are more often “ignored orbecauseaway”. The case study below givesexplainedexamples of this. Why do scientistsseveralonto theories when results contradictholdKuhn showed that it was only whenthem?really started to pile up and couldanomalieslonger be ignored, especially if a new theorynoexplain them, that a scientific theorycouldII. PerspectivesII. PerspectivesWhig historyhuman ability.perfect and govern it in charity.(Bacon quoted in Sargent 1999)II.2 Change over time: Two historicalperspectives on science171
II. Perspectivessaid to be in crisis. A new paradigm waswasaccepted or looked for—the scientificthenpart. How exactly this happenedrevolutionfrom case to case, and could bedifferedby non-scientific factors suchinfluencedmoney, fame, personalities and nationalasdoes Hacking’s view in the quote aboveHowwith Popper’s view of science?compareinfluential was Kuhn? Debates about thisHowfor years after his book was published,ragedhis views have been influential. Beforebutpresented his theory, we had idealsKuhnwhat science aspires to do. From Kuhn,abouthave a perspective about what scientistswedo. To understand and evaluate hisactuallywe can examine case studies of paradigmviewand analyse the hows and whys ofshifts,theiroccurrence.from the Western scientific tradition ofExampleslast few centuries include:thethe Copernican revolution in 1542, which•that the Earth is not the centre of theshowedNewton’s model of mechanics replacing•theories in 1687Aristotle’sthe chemical revolution in 1783, in which•theories replaced the phlogistonLavoisier’sCharles Darwin’s theory of natural selection•1859 inquantum mechanics replacing classical•in 1905mechanicsthe theory of electromagnetic radiation•1905 inEinstein’s general relativity replacing•gravity in 1919.Newton’son this list, natural science appears to haveBasedcalm for over a century. Does that meanbeenare overdue for a revolution in the naturalweOr could it be that the natural sciencessciences?become exceptionally good at dispellinghaveOr that revolutions are shorter, fasteranomalies?some estimates, The Structure of ScientificByhas sold around 1.5 million copiesRevolutionsattracting a readership well outsideworldwide,history and philosophy of science. A workthesuch reputation is expected to attract someofOne critical perspective, for example,criticism.that Kuhn’s theory was based onassertsand conceptual shifts in physics,theoreticalshould not be generalized to otherwhichAnother argues that revolutions indisciplines.are more common and less dramaticscienceKuhn describes. Notable revolutions inthanhave had comparably minor elementssciencecrisis or revisionism, such as the discovery ofofstructure of DNA. Yet, few would go backthedefending the Whig view of science. As wetointo the 21st century, with eScience,continuemethodologies and blockchaindata-drivenwe will need new theories ofworkflows,change beyond falsificationism andscientificshifts, that account for contemporaryparadigmand insights.challenges7theoryinterest.Normal science• the germ theory of disease in 1880Paradigm shiftRevolutionKuhn cycleDriftCrisisFigure 7.2Th Kuhn ylor less disruptive?Normal science does not aim at novelty but atclearing up the status quo. It tends to discover what itexpects to discover.(Hacking 2012)universe, but instead revolves around the sun172
- Page 127 and 128: does it mean to think of land as a
- Page 129 and 130: II. Perspectivesof the original nat
- Page 131 and 132: Wilson, who is Opaskwayak Cree,Shaw
- Page 133 and 134: I ranted in my head. ‘There is no
- Page 135 and 136: we consider the contributions of TE
- Page 137 and 138: an authority and belief system that
- Page 139 and 140: III. Methods and toolsand mutual ai
- Page 141 and 142: IV. Ethicsthe only thing one can do
- Page 143 and 144: IV. Ethicsintellectual property has
- Page 145 and 146: 6andKnowledgereligionworld’s reli
- Page 147 and 148: I. Scopejudicial, economic, and pol
- Page 149 and 150: I. Scopein his view, involves this
- Page 151 and 152: I. Scopekinds of questions altogeth
- Page 153 and 154: II. Perspectivespractices of the cu
- Page 155 and 156: religious knowledge lose something,
- Page 157 and 158: what extent can we comprehend the w
- Page 159 and 160: II. Perspectivesone, it allows stra
- Page 161 and 162: the context of perspectives, it is
- Page 163 and 164: view has been criticized for being
- Page 165 and 166: David Thoreau was a naturalist, wri
- Page 167 and 168: III. Methods and toolsdisasters are
- Page 169 and 170: IV. Ethicswe have an ethical respon
- Page 171 and 172: IV. EthicsSinger described conseque
- Page 173 and 174: IV. Ethics1962, generals seized pow
- Page 175 and 176: recent human activity called scienc
- Page 177: II. Perspectivessection explores th
- Page 181 and 182: II. PerspectivesNewton’s theory?
- Page 183 and 184: II. Perspectives19th century reveal
- Page 185 and 186: II. PerspectivesWhat are some scien
- Page 187 and 188: II. Perspectivesof Duesberg’s pap
- Page 189 and 190: II. Perspectivesis a highly simplif
- Page 191 and 192: II. Perspectivesterms: Symphony ofS
- Page 193 and 194: II. Perspectivesorigin story of gen
- Page 195 and 196: II. Perspectivestechnical debates i
- Page 197 and 198: II. Perspectivesfar this section ha
- Page 199 and 200: II. Perspectivesthe kind of problem
- Page 201 and 202: III. Methods and toolsthe scientifi
- Page 203 and 204: III. Methods and toolsunrecognized
- Page 205 and 206: III. Methods and toolshas a number
- Page 207 and 208: III. Methods and toolsthe link to t
- Page 209 and 210: IV. Ethicswas the wartime head of t
- Page 211 and 212: IV. Ethicsan essential, imperfect a
- Page 213 and 214: 8Human scienceschapter is about the
- Page 215 and 216: I. Scopeof an idea or theory coming
- Page 217 and 218: I. Scopecentral cause of the profes
- Page 219 and 220: I. Scopeidea of describing society
- Page 221 and 222: who had been placed at the ‘lower
- Page 223 and 224: explore perspectives on the existen
- Page 225 and 226: II. Perspectivesallegations of scie
- Page 227 and 228: we look at the simplifications that
of Hercules on each side of the Strait of
pillars
in the Mediterranean Sea. The pillars
Gibraltar
said to have been inscribed with the phrase
are
plus ultra, which translates from the Latin
ne
“go no further/nothing lies beyond”. The
to
one leaving and one returning, indicate
galleons,
act of venturing beyond the known limits of
the
of the ancient world. At the bottom,
knowledge
inscription of Biblical origin in Latin says
an
pertransibunt et augebitur scientia: “many
multi
go to and fro, and knowledge shall be
shall
increased”.
to the question of the power of
Returning
knowledge, Bacon would have
scientific
imagined humanity’s dominion over
probably
rather than our domination of it.
nature,
I would address one general admonition to all: that
…
consider what are the true ends of knowledge,
they
that they seek it not either for pleasure of the
and
or for contention, or for superiority to others, or
mind,
prot, or fame, or power, or any of these inferior
for
but for the benet and use of life; and that they
things:
does science change over time? The different
How
to this question reveal valuable insights
answers
practising scientists as well as those learning
for
make judgments about scientific claims. Our
to
of how modern science is done
understanding
challenged just a few decades ago, when
was
Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific
Thomas
in 1962, arguing that science proceeds
Revolutions,
periods of normalcy interrupted by
through
rather than in a linear way. Kuhn
revolutions,
the term “paradigm shift” to describe these
used
that produced new ways of thinking
revolutions
doing within scientific disciplines. He also
and
that science is not as objective as was
argued
is) commonly accepted, because scientific
(and
are in fact defined by what a community
truths
scientists agree to be true. This was vastly
of
from the prevailing view of science at the
different
often called the “Whig history” of science,
time,
a heroic march towards fundamental truths,
as
saw the success of science as self-evident
that
andinevitable.
history was a positivist philosophy of science
Whig
marching forward heroically, adding new truths to
as
existing and ever-growing stock of truths. Progress
an
seen as guaranteed by the scientic method and
was
did Kuhn dismiss scientific objectivity?
Why
understand this, we must understand how
To
described scientific change. He saw
Kuhn
as people who accepted a paradigm
scientists
accounted for accepted truths, concepts
that
investigative practices (that is, they had
and
enculturated into a scientific paradigm by a
been
community). A new idea or discovery
scientific
judged by how similar it was to the existing
was
and discoveries, and judgments
theories
similarity are fundamentally subjective,
about
to Kuhn.
according
might sound strange, especially because
This
clashes with the widespread belief that
it
is about objectively proving theories
science
(falsification). Remember, Popper
wrong
that a single reproducible anomaly (a
argued
inconsistent with a theory) is enough to
result
the theory. Kuhn is famous because he
reject
that science does not work that way,
showed
anomalies are more often “ignored or
because
away”. The case study below gives
explained
examples of this. Why do scientists
several
onto theories when results contradict
hold
Kuhn showed that it was only when
them?
really started to pile up and could
anomalies
longer be ignored, especially if a new theory
no
explain them, that a scientific theory
could
II. Perspectives
II. Perspectives
Whig history
human ability.
perfect and govern it in charity.
(Bacon quoted in Sargent 1999)
II.2 Change over time: Two historical
perspectives on science
171