Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
question for us is: in not rejectingThephysics earlier, despite theNewton’sanomalies, were these scientistsmounting“bad science”?practisingthe first example, their unwillingness toIna theory resulted in success—Neptunerejectdiscovered, and Newton was vindicated.wasthe second example, this approach failed.Inexamples could be considered “badBothaccording to the falsification criteriascience”out by Popper, and both are more alignedsetKuhn’s view of science than Popper’s.withfalsification continues to shape how weYet,about scientific practice. Imagine anthinktimeline in which Einstein’s generalalternativenever came along, and astronomersrelativityastrophysicists continued to believe anandplanet Vulcan was responsible forunseenunexplainable orbit. How long andMercury’smany more anomalies would it take forhowto give up on Newton’s physics? Morethemwhat Vulcans like this exist today,interestingly,us to cling onto flawed paradigms?allowinghistory of science suggests that this is veryThe1930 Wolfgang Pauli wrote to a friend:Indone a terrible thing, I have“Ihavea particle that cannot be detected”postulatedin Sutton 1992). He was referring(quotedthe neutrino, a tiny subatomic particle. Itto“terrible” because science was supposedwasbe concerned with falsification, andtopredictions that could not be tested.notthings that might be true butPostulatingbe tested was considered bad science.cannotwe saw how that approach succeeded inButdiscovery of Neptune. Why was Pauli inthewasn’t really. He may have suspected thatHewould eventually allow equipmenttechnologyPauli was inspired by Le Verrier,Perhapsdiscovery of Neptune temporarilywhosechallenge: a fundamental principle ofsimilarthe conservation of energy, was beingphysics,because of anomalies detected inquestioneddecay. Energy was being “lost”radioactivebut if Pauli could account for it,somewhere,might save the theory. He wrote: “I have hithea desperate remedy to save the energyupon(quoted in Brown 1978).theorem”remedy seemed a preposterousThatof a new particle with almostpredictionmass and no electric charge, called thezeroThe best equipment of the time,neutrino.detectors, had no way of detectingparticlea chargeless particle. It was likesuchNeptune, but knowing that noproposingalive could find it. Strangely, the physicsoneembraced Pauli’s hypothesis. Itcommunitytake almost three decades for scientistswoulddetect the neutrino, using new methods andtoincluding a nuclear reactor—technologies,it turned out that neutrinos are literallybutDoes the result justify the means?everywhere.suggested something invisible to savePaulitheory. Le Verrier did the same. Knowingahow much do you think falsificationthis,observability matter as guides to “goodandAt what point can a theory bescience”?falsified? What would happen if wedeemedto the idealized version of science—orstuckthis bad science necessary for scientificwasto “progress”? These are of courseknowledgequestions, but they might affectrhetoricalwe think about string theory, the mainhowof which are currently unfalsifiable andideasbut hold promise of providingundetectable,grand unified theory of physics. Someahave even argued that we shouldscientiststhe importance of falsification toreducestring theory from the usual standardsprotectof science.requiredPopper’s falsification criterion,Beforehad another ideal: observability. ThescienceII. PerspectivesII. Perspectivesmuch something to look out for.Pauli and the neutrinosuch despair?The question of observability: Atomsand electronsto detect the neutrino.controversy about atoms in the latter half ofsaved Newtonian physics. Pauli faced a175
II. Perspectives19th century reveals the extent to whichtheideal was held. Some scientists werethisby the explanatory power of atomicpersuadedBut no one had detected atoms, notheory.at the time could detect them,equipmentthey solved no new puzzle. Hundreds ofandsmaller than light waves, atoms weretimesby even the most powerfulunobservableMach was a brilliant and influentialErnstand philosopher, whose critiquephysicistNewton’s physics may have later helpedofpostulate general relativity. However,Einsteinwent so far as to say “I don’t believe thatheexist”, and that good science should notatomsexamples above serve to explain howTheon falsification and “goodperspectiveshave changed over time. Falsificationscience”be too strict to use as an everyday rule.mayscientists test Einstein’s theory usingWhenand photographic plates, they aretelescopestesting the focal theory, plussimultaneouslytheory of optics that goes into designingthe2014, 178 of the world’s greatest minds—Inthinkers, public intellectuals—scientists,the question: “What scientific ideaconsideredready for retirement?”isterms: Edge WhatSearchidea is ready forscientificyou read a few of their responses, you seeIfand complementing perspectives.contradictingidea was so influential that it causedThisKaufmann, a German physicist, toWalterwhat could have been the discovery ofignorein 1897: the particles he suspectedelectronstoo small to observe, so he stayedwereMonths later J.J. Thomson, an Englishsilent.suspected the same thing, calledphysicist,electrons, and went on to receive thethemturns out that Pauli, the man who posited theIt(one of the tiniest known subatomicneutrinovia a desperate and unobservableparticles)untestable “remedy”, had a famousandcalled Mach, the very same Mach whouncleproclaimed, “I don’t believe thatinfamouslyexist”. And thus we see why Pauliatomshis prediction of the existence ofdescribedmathematical analyses of the data, plus atheof other things that we take for granted inlotbackground. If there is a mismatch betweentheand observation, it is not enough to ruletheorythe theory immediately. A failure in oneoutthe many related theories and assumptionsofbe to blame instead. Reproduciblemighttested under a variety of conditionsanomaliesmay be happy, sad or surprised to seeYou“The Self” or “The Universe”“Calculus”,considered for retirement. In pairs, smallbeingor as a class discuss the followinggroupsWhat reasons are offered for qualifying a1.idea for retirement?scientificIf the reasons sound compelling to you,2.do you think some of the ideas persist?whyWhat does it mean for a scientific idea to be3.actually happens to it?retired—what7microscopes of the time.Nobel Prize.be concerned with finding them.neutrinos as a “terrible thing”.the telescopes, plus the assumptions behindare needed for falsification.For discussionScientific ideas ready for retirementquestions.retirement?176
- 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 and 178: II. Perspectivessection explores th
- Page 179 and 180: II. Perspectivessaid to be in crisi
- Page 181: II. PerspectivesNewton’s theory?
- 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
- Page 229 and 230: II. PerspectivesIII. Methods and to
- Page 231 and 232: III. Methods and toolslack of diver
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