Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
we relied on only our eyes, ears and noseIfdetect things in the universe, we wouldtohave come very far. It seems an obviousnotbut the question of what is observablepoint,very real implications for how scientistshasand believe they should do, science. If wedo,that technology improves over time, weacceptexpect that our ability to observe thingscanequipment is also likely to improve overusingThus, theorizing about undetectabletime.such as the photon (Einstein), neutrinothings,and string theory (many contemporary(Pauli)does not seem like such a badphysicists),Indeed, the photon and neutrino wereidea.within 30 years of their proponents’discoveredYet, four concerns emerge.predictions.first concern, regarding the examplesTheNeptune and the neutrino, is a form ofofbias called survivorship bias: thoseselectionare famous, but we neglect thediscoveriesless visible examples of dead-endmanylike the planet Vulcan. Wouldtheories,be better off focusing strictly on thescienceIt is a fascinating question, notobservable?because how we would approach it is aleastknowledge problem.profoundsecond concern relates to how we defineAin relation to existingunobservable,has not always been theExperimentationway to gain scientific knowledge, butpreferredevents and ideas known as “the scientificthefirmly installed experiments nearrevolution”top of the methodological hierarchy. Eventhepop culture visuals of what it means toour“doingscience” often invoke individualsbelaboratory coats and handling test tubeswearingin the 17th century, “experiment”Beginningto be known as intervention using technicalcameand scientific theories. It istechnologiestheories and technologies that informthesepreconceptions about what is, and isourobservable. Could we invent a methodnot,ignore or hide from unobservable ideas,toand subconscious hunches? How cantheoriesaccount for the shifting and blurring of thisweover time?boundarythis fixation on observed phenomenaThirdly,distract from the larger truth that a givenmaycan lead to vastly differentphenomenonin different theories. Even wheninterpretationsphenomena are largely agreed upon,observedcauses remain mired in controversy (thetheirdisagreements over climate changepoliticala case in point). Good “theorizing” isarewhile getting fixated on falsifiabilityimportant,observability can hold important science,orfourth concern relates to the assumptionThetechnology will continue to improve.thateveryone around us will attest thatAlmosthas progressed tremendouslytechnologytheir lifetimes and the livingthroughoutof their parents and grandparents.memoriescan we, and should we, expect this toYetThis is dealt with more fullycontinue?their causes. Earlier in this chapterrevealencountered Bacon, who saw science aswenature’s secrets, by intentionallyunlockingand mimicking nature in amanipulatinga closer look, however, experimentsTakingdecidedly unnatural. Laboratory studiesarethe 1980s have shown that scientists gosincegreat lengths to remove the messiness oftoto control all variables but one in anature,laboratory environment where “naturepurifiedsystematically excluded” (Sismondo 2010).isphenomena produced in the laboratoryHowever,regularly, and uncontroversially, claimedarebelieved to stand in for natural phenomena.andIII. Methods and toolsIII. Methods and toolsBox 7.8: What is observable?and policy, back.inChapter 3.III.2 The natural and the artificialin experimentscontrolled environment.or microscopes.instruments, to examine scientific objects and195
III. Methods and toolsunrecognized and often unstated simplicityThissanitization have important implicationsandtheories arising from them, as the exampleforMendelian genetics and the Bateson–WeldonofSismondo, professor of philosophy andSergiostudies of science, provides a perspectivesocialthe social forces that lend legitimacy toonexperiments.scientificarticiality of experiments was one of theThethat many natural philosophers of theconcernscentury had about them. … Particularseventeenthand spaces that served as laboratoriesplacesto the legitimacy of experiment—forcontributedthe location of laboratories within theexample,describes the lengths that earlySismondowent to, to convince the public thatexperimentersexperiments were not flukes. The concern istheirof an old problem: how can we know ifindicativeexperiment is working? Usually, we can test itoura known quantity and see whether it giveswithcorrect answer. But what if we do not knowthethat answer is, not even remotely? How doeswhatdiscern signal from noise? This challenge,sciencelooking for answers with a tool that we cannotofsure is working, has been called the “problembeexperimenters’ regress” by sociologist ofofknowledge, Harry M. Collins (1981). It isscientifica trivial problem, but it is also notnotIn the article linked here is theinsurmountable.story of a group of astrophysicists whorivetingto incredible lengths to overcome thiswentin their search for gravitationalproblemterms: Nautilus Issue 42Searchwho faked itAstrophysicistsattention to the discrepancies betweenPayingartificial purity of the laboratory and thetheof the world can hold keys to newmessinessAn example from the history ofknowledge.In the last years of the 19th century, Lordhere.and Sir William Ramsey observed thatRayleighextracted from chemical compoundsnitrogenthe laboratory was 0.5% lighter than nitrogeninfrom the atmosphere. It was a smallderiveddifference to have been an artifact ofenoughexperimental set-up, or anything else.theirwere curious, though, and their researchTheyto the discovery of argon and other nobleledand a Nobel Prize.gases,her book True Enough, Catherine Z.In(2017) argues that scientific facts andElginare never strictly speaking true,theoriesexperiments and theories describebecausesimplified and controlled reality, not theathings around us.naturalthus refers to science as a set ofElginfalsehoods”—falsehoods that“felicitoususeful for helping us to understand thearebut are not accurate descriptions of it.world,is a radically different conception ofThistruth and certainty, and morescientificwith the simplified models used inalignedhuman sciences, discussed in Chapter 8.theis not just a junior assistant toObservationit is an astounding humanexperimentation,scientific activity deserving attention in itsandright. ownas a scientific method has oftenObservationa collective dimension. Edmondinvolved1686 map of the trade winds isHalley’sone of the most successful earlyconsideredat collective observation. It was basedeffortsthe accounts of seafarers, travellers andonas it was global, and therefore tooadventurers,for any one person to observe.big7debate (in II.5, Box 7.5) reveals.For discussionTrue enough? Science as “felicitousfalsehoods”of English gentlemen helped establishhomes… . trust(Sismondo 2010)III.3 Learning to see: Scientificobservation as methodwaves.the periodic table of elements is revealing196
- 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 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: III. Methods and toolsthe scientifi
- 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
- Page 233 and 234: III. Methods and toolssensitivity
- Page 235 and 236: III. Methods and toolsMargaret Mead
- Page 237 and 238: III. Methods and toolstheir presenc
- Page 239 and 240: III. Methods and toolstold Mahbub,
- Page 241 and 242: III. Methods and toolsY. Thinley, a
- Page 243 and 244: III. Methods and toolsis the scope
- Page 245 and 246: III. Methods and toolssignificant c
- Page 247 and 248: III. Methods and toolsIV. Ethics7 d
- Page 249 and 250: IV. Ethicschange … brings togethe
- Page 251 and 252: last example brings together ideas
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