What Is This Thing Called Science? / Alan Chalmers
Chapter 1: science as knowledge
17th century
science based on facts of observation, rather than based on authority (e.g. the
Bible)
Scientific knowledge is
derived from facts arrived at by observationà
shared view empiricists and positivists
Claims:
a. Facts are directly given to
careful, unprejudiced observers via the senses
b. Facts are prior to and
independent of theory
c. Facts constitute a firm and
reliable foundation for scientific knowledge
Seeing is believing = false
- What observers see, the
subjective experiences that they undergo, when viewing an object or scene is
not determined solely by the images but depends also on the experience,
knowledge and expectations of the observer à
perceptions are not given in a straightforward way via the senses, rather one
has to learn to be a competent observer in science
- Counterargument: observers
see the same thing but interpret what they see differently
- But our perceptual
experiences are determined by more than just the images we see à knowledge and
expectations
Observable facts expressed as statements
- Facts are understood as
statements
- Before an observer can
formulate and assent to an observation statement, he must be in possession of
the appropriate conceptual framework and knowledge of to apply it
- It is a mistake to presume
(b) because facts presuppose pre-knowledge, so it cannot be the cae that we
first establish the facts and then derive knowledge from them
Why should facts precede theory?
- Idea that the adequacy of
knowledge should be tested against the observable facts makes no sense if facts
must precede the knowledge that might be supported by them
- Search for and formulation
of facts is knowledge dependent. If the truth of falsity of observation
statements can be established in a direct way by observation then it would seem
that the observation statements confirmed in this way provide a basis for
scientific knowledge
Fallibility of observation statements
- If the knowledge that
provided the categories we use to describe our observations is defective, the
observation statements that presuppose those categories are similarly defective
- The correction of a mistake
about observable facts may be made possible by improved
knowledge and technology
- Any view to the effect that
scientific knowledge is based on facts acquired by observation must allow that
facts as well as the knowledge are fallible and subject to correction
-Scientific knowledge and
the facts on which it is based are interdependent
Conclusion
- Perceptions are influenced
by the background and expectations of the observer, so what appears to be an
observable fact for one need not to be for another
- Judgments about the truth
of observation statements depend on what is already known, thus rendering the
observable facts as fallible as the presuppositions underlying them
additional summaries in philosophy of science
Some books about philosophy of science to consider:
