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

we relied on only our eyes, ears and nose
If
detect things in the universe, we would
to
have come very far. It seems an obvious
not
but the question of what is observable
point,
very real implications for how scientists
has
and believe they should do, science. If we
do,
that technology improves over time, we
accept
expect that our ability to observe things
can
equipment is also likely to improve over
using
Thus, theorizing about undetectable
time.
such as the photon (Einstein), neutrino
things,
and string theory (many contemporary
(Pauli)
does not seem like such a bad
physicists),
Indeed, the photon and neutrino were
idea.
within 30 years of their proponents’
discovered
Yet, four concerns emerge.
predictions.
first concern, regarding the examples
The
Neptune and the neutrino, is a form of
of
bias called survivorship bias: those
selection
are famous, but we neglect the
discoveries
less visible examples of dead-end
many
like the planet Vulcan. Would
theories,
be better off focusing strictly on the
science
It is a fascinating question, not
observable?
because how we would approach it is a
least
knowledge problem.
profound
second concern relates to how we define
A
in relation to existing
unobservable,
has not always been the
Experimentation
way to gain scientific knowledge, but
preferred
events and ideas known as “the scientific
the
firmly installed experiments near
revolution”
top of the methodological hierarchy. Even
the
pop culture visuals of what it means to
our
“doingscience” often invoke individuals
be
laboratory coats and handling test tubes
wearing
in the 17th century, “experiment”
Beginning
to be known as intervention using technical
came
and scientific theories. It is
technologies
theories and technologies that inform
these
preconceptions about what is, and is
our
observable. Could we invent a method
not,
ignore or hide from unobservable ideas,
to
and subconscious hunches? How can
theories
account for the shifting and blurring of this
we
over time?
boundary
this fixation on observed phenomena
Thirdly,
distract from the larger truth that a given
may
can lead to vastly different
phenomenon
in different theories. Even when
interpretations
phenomena are largely agreed upon,
observed
causes remain mired in controversy (the
their
disagreements over climate change
political
a case in point). Good “theorizing” is
are
while getting fixated on falsifiability
important,
observability can hold important science,
or
fourth concern relates to the assumption
The
technology will continue to improve.
that
everyone around us will attest that
Almost
has progressed tremendously
technology
their lifetimes and the living
throughout
of their parents and grandparents.
memories
can we, and should we, expect this to
Yet
This is dealt with more fully
continue?
their causes. Earlier in this chapter
reveal
encountered Bacon, who saw science as
we
nature’s secrets, by intentionally
unlocking
and mimicking nature in a
manipulating
a closer look, however, experiments
Taking
decidedly unnatural. Laboratory studies
are
the 1980s have shown that scientists go
since
great lengths to remove the messiness of
to
to control all variables but one in a
nature,
laboratory environment where “nature
purified
systematically excluded” (Sismondo 2010).
is
phenomena produced in the laboratory
However,
regularly, and uncontroversially, claimed
are
believed to stand in for natural phenomena.
and
III. Methods and tools
III. Methods and tools
Box 7.8: What is observable?
and policy, back.
inChapter 3.
III.2 The natural and the artificial
in experiments
controlled environment.
or microscopes.
instruments, to examine scientific objects and
195