Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

question for us is: in not rejecting
The
physics earlier, despite the
Newton’s
anomalies, were these scientists
mounting
“bad science”?
practising
the first example, their unwillingness to
In
a theory resulted in success—Neptune
reject
discovered, and Newton was vindicated.
was
the second example, this approach failed.
In
examples could be considered “bad
Both
according to the falsification criteria
science”
out by Popper, and both are more aligned
set
Kuhn’s view of science than Popper’s.
with
falsification continues to shape how we
Yet,
about scientific practice. Imagine an
think
timeline in which Einstein’s general
alternative
never came along, and astronomers
relativity
astrophysicists continued to believe an
and
planet Vulcan was responsible for
unseen
unexplainable orbit. How long and
Mercury’s
many more anomalies would it take for
how
to give up on Newton’s physics? More
them
what Vulcans like this exist today,
interestingly,
us to cling onto flawed paradigms?
allowing
history of science suggests that this is very
The
1930 Wolfgang Pauli wrote to a friend:
In
done a terrible thing, I have
“Ihave
a particle that cannot be detected”
postulated
in Sutton 1992). He was referring
(quoted
the neutrino, a tiny subatomic particle. It
to
“terrible” because science was supposed
was
be concerned with falsification, and
to
predictions that could not be tested.
not
things that might be true but
Postulating
be tested was considered bad science.
cannot
we saw how that approach succeeded in
But
discovery of Neptune. Why was Pauli in
the
wasn’t really. He may have suspected that
He
would eventually allow equipment
technology
Pauli was inspired by Le Verrier,
Perhaps
discovery of Neptune temporarily
whose
challenge: a fundamental principle of
similar
the conservation of energy, was being
physics,
because of anomalies detected in
questioned
decay. Energy was being “lost”
radioactive
but if Pauli could account for it,
somewhere,
might save the theory. He wrote: “I have hit
he
a desperate remedy to save the energy
upon
(quoted in Brown 1978).
theorem”
remedy seemed a preposterous
That
of a new particle with almost
prediction
mass and no electric charge, called the
zero
The best equipment of the time,
neutrino.
detectors, had no way of detecting
particle
a chargeless particle. It was like
such
Neptune, but knowing that no
proposing
alive could find it. Strangely, the physics
one
embraced Pauli’s hypothesis. It
community
take almost three decades for scientists
would
detect the neutrino, using new methods and
to
including a nuclear reactor—
technologies,
it turned out that neutrinos are literally
but
Does the result justify the means?
everywhere.
suggested something invisible to save
Pauli
theory. Le Verrier did the same. Knowing
a
how much do you think falsification
this,
observability matter as guides to “good
and
At what point can a theory be
science”?
falsified? What would happen if we
deemed
to the idealized version of science—or
stuck
this bad science necessary for scientific
was
to “progress”? These are of course
knowledge
questions, but they might affect
rhetorical
we think about string theory, the main
how
of which are currently unfalsifiable and
ideas
but hold promise of providing
undetectable,
grand unified theory of physics. Some
a
have even argued that we should
scientists
the importance of falsification to
reduce
string theory from the usual standards
protect
of science.
required
Popper’s falsification criterion,
Before
had another ideal: observability. The
science
II. Perspectives
II. Perspectives
much something to look out for.
Pauli and the neutrino
such despair?
The question of observability: Atoms
and electrons
to detect the neutrino.
controversy about atoms in the latter half of
saved Newtonian physics. Pauli faced a
175