Theory Change in the Progress of Science - Paper

Introduction to Philosophy of Science
Professor Jim Fahey
May 3, 2004

The traditional view on the progress of science is mostly scientific for most empiricists. It consists of updating current theories on how the world works with new observations and discoveries. According to the traditional view of scientific progress, observation is an objective way to settle disagreements among scientists when talking about how the world works. The “theory-ladenness of observation,” however, has to do with “whether observational evidence can be considered an unbiased or neutral source of information when choosing between theories, or whether observations tend to be ‘contaminated’ by theoretical assumptions in a way that prevents them from having this role” (Godfrey-Smith 155). This theory was developed and supported by Hanson, Kuhn, and Feyerabend.

The argument simply states: “observation cannot function as an unbiased way of testing theories, because observational judgments are affected by the theoretical beliefs of the observer” [and] therefore, [the] traditional empiricist views about observation in science are false (Godfrey-Smith 156). Another point made by this theory is the influence of the scientist’s theoretical framework when there is an experiment to be talked about. In other words, there is no language whose application to phenomena is totally “theory-free” (Godfrey-Smith 157). Hanson also agrees with Kuhn on the “theory-ladenness” of observation. He gives the example of the famous drawing which consists of both a young woman and an old Parisienne. The view taken here is that the observer can see two different drawings depending on his or her interpretation. Similarly in science, one can take different observational views on the same object and record different data based on each of their own interpretations (Hanson 11). Both Kuhn and Hanson successfully support the views of observational bias in the traditional views of theory change in science and are in favor of the “theory-ladenness of observation.”

There are some positions that have been put forth in response to theory change and progress in science. These include: empiricism, scientific realism, social constructivism, and pragmatism. First, empiricists are anti-metaphysicists who believe that all we have is only just givens of experience and truth can only be proven by induction. Second, scientific realists define truths in the universe to be out there regardless of the frame of reference or whether we can know about reality. They believe that reality exists independently of what we think. Next, social metaphysicists think that there is truth but only relative to a specific conceptual framework. Lastly, pragmatists deny the capacity of getting at the truth. Unlike realists, they think that we are always altering our truths as we find new ways to explain how things work in the world. There is no absolute truth, to a pragmatist; there is truth when it works for us best in a given situation and a given frame of reference.

Furthermore, views on science diverge as it comes to quantum mechanics and when relating to the famous Bell Inequality problem. Empiricists would say that if we can’t explain something on the quanta level based on our gathered data then it does not exist. Realists would say that if the data we have does not make sense in explaining the world then we just can’t know about it yet in this time and age of science. For instance, if Newton had not discovered gravity, then realists would just assume there to be some kind of force keeping everything on the earth attached to the ground. In contrast, unlike empiricists, they wouldn’t say that the force doesn’t exist just because we don’t know about it yet. Perhaps this is not the perfect example but moreover, if we discussed about quantum theory with empiricists from pre-Newtonian time, then they would deny the existence of any sort of particle activity going on at the quanta level in atoms because they have not had the advantage of electron microscopes and such to be able to observe these phenomena.

As epistemology and metaphysical views depart from one another, other views merge. In addition empiricism and realism, the social (metaphysical) constructivists would see quantum mechanics being more relativistic than realistic, or empiric. They are relativists whose beliefs are in a truth is completely dependent of its conceptual framework. This means that on the quantum level, they would believe quantum mechanics to work only if it is referred to on the quanta level. Similarly, the pragmatist would agree that on a quantum level, if quantum mechanics can explain the phenomena happening there best, then that is the pragmatist’s reality on the quanta level.

Another issue rose in the discussion of quantum mechanics: the Bell Inequality theory. To examine the theory of the Bell Inequality, as of current, nothing can explain why there are supposedly signals faster than the speed of light. Just this assumption eliminates the law of the light barrier posed by Einstein, which says that nothing can get to or exceed the speed of light (3 x 108 m/s) without becoming light itself. Empiricists would deny this theory completely because there is no proof of this thing that is going beyond light speed. Realists would say that either we made the wrong assumption, or we just haven’t found ways to prove the theory, but there is something going on regardless whether we can know about it. A metaphysicist would argue that it does make sense to say that something must be traveling faster than the speed of light because it is referring to a different set of framework, so Einstein’s theory of the light barrier may not apply to the quanta level. Naturally, the pragmatists would agree with the metaphysicists in saying that because the theory explains best what we can currently observe, it must be truth. On the whole, I consider myself a realist in believing the world to be absolute regardless of whether we can find out about these truths. It makes the most sense to say that quantum mechanics cannot explain the Bell Inequality because we are still missing information on the whole. I believe that activities on the quantum level use the same set of reference frame as everything else in the universe, and that we just have to look harder to discover the appropriate set of laws that applies to all.

References
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Theory and Reality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Hanson, N. R. Patterns of Discovery. London: Cambridge University Press, 1958.

Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Perfection

Why can't one simply appreciate one's own parents' effort in giving birth and raising another human being? Why do we seek perfection? It is perhaps only because we are not perfect which comes denial, prejudice, anger, distrust, and a plethora of emotions involving the playing of social and psychological games with one another. If we were all equal and no one is better or worse than another, then we would not possess any emotions, including the good ones like trust, love, courage. Likewise, I am not perfect. I am nowhere near flawlessness. I am human. Ergo, it is that human imperfection which drives me to search and reach for that ideal perfect reality, which obviously does not exist in this time and place. Without the search for perfection, there will reach a point of equilibrium, in which the world does not need to progress, there will be no purpose to live out one day and wait for the next. The speed of evolutionary progression is directly dependent on the level of desire for a perfect world. The more society seeks to have, the more society will produce and will get more efficient at it as time progresses. In a society where people are happy and desire little more than what they already have around them, social evolutionary progression slows. By chance if another society with a higher level of want happens to come across the less socio-evolutionarily developed society, then the latter would be at much disadvantage, ergo would be conquered by the former of the two societies. Thus is the beginning of war and a war to keep the most perfect race and society.