The power of scientific knowledge ‐ and its limits* (original) (raw)

Tradition and the Scientific Enterprise

2019

In relating humanities to science, some scholars have argues that tradition plays a prominent role in the humanities but not in the sciences. This, for them, explains why there is development in science more than humanities because tradition in treated a d dead weight that hinders reason and freedom this paper challenges this view point as grossly inadequate as it represents only a superficial observation of the practice of science and does not recognise the role tradition plays in the progress of science. This paper attempts to show that science which is supposedly a dynamic and progressive enterprise is tradition-dependent and that membership in the scientific community requires working within the scientific tradition. It is argued that the attack of science on all kinds of tradition and authority is unjustifiable. The paper concludes by proposing the need for the critique of tradition so that it does not slip into traditionalism. The methodology this paper adopt is the conceptual...

The Scientific Method and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge

International journal of innovative research and development, 2017

Science and its products have tremendous impact on our lives and how we influence our immediate environment and the world at large. The importance of science goes far beyond how the product of science and technology influence us. Science, as compared to other areas of study or institutions, enjoys an unparalleled prestige in society (Delfino, 2014). This is why nations are making every effort to provide funding for science and technology projects and research, and provide incentives and scholarships to those who have chosen to study science. No wonder people trust what the scientist says than what a farmer, journalist, politician or businessman will say, even though the scientists may be not be saying so much. People often ask whether what is being said is scientifically proven. Science is seen by many as a highly rational and non-subjective inquiry, and scientists are seen as people who are able to collect, infer from evidence, and depend on evidence to derive 'scientifically proven' conclusion. The scientifically proven conclusions are devoid of prejudice and are not the product of ideology. Somehow these characteristics are paramount in the philosophy of science. According to Makumba (2005), philosophy of science may be looked at in three ways. First, as the formulation of worldviews that are consistent with important scientific theories as "an exposition of the presuppositions and predispositions of scientists" (p. 74) and thirdly as a discipline in which concepts and theories in the field of the sciences are critically analyzed and clarified. Philosophy of science may either be epistemology or metaphysics. Whichever way we look at the philosophy of science the general aim is to describe and understand how science works within all of its branches. We may have philosophical interest in Science because of the influence of science on us, but besides this, science answers some philosophical questions and is therefore important to philosophy. One of such questions has to do with the ways by which we can gain knowledge as opposed to beliefs and opinions (Mingers, 2008) and the general answer to such a question is that the scientific method must be followed. Whatever a government may believe, be it right or wrong, about the effects of filth on beaches, it will not act till science provides evidence in support of such belief. The views of scientist are accorded respect due to the fact that conclusions drawn by scientists are reached through proper and standard methods of collecting and analyzing evidence, and hence the conclusions of scientists are justified. Even in some cases, the conclusions are tested with the intention of making them false. Since Francis Bacon proposed the 'scientific method', it has been subjected to criticism, like that of Hume and Popper. It has seen modifications and alternatives, like the falsificationism doctrine Karl Popper preached. This essay discusses the philosophy of science by looking at two major areas; the scientific method and the growth of scientific knowledge.

On the Driving Forces of Science

Science and society are Siamese twins: Modern society could not exist without the fruits of science, modern science could not exist without the tools provided by society. This paper investigates the link between the two, starting from the hypothesis that science develops in accordance with the needs of society; in other words, the direction science takes is not the result of decisions made by scientists but a response to demands from society. To test the hypothesis, the history of science is reviewed. It is argued that at every stage of the development of society-from the hunter-gatherer to the nomadic herder, agricultural, feudal and capitalist stage-the new needs of society led to new scientific concepts. Private ownership of animals brought the invention of numbers, the need for a calendar for agriculture the development of the position value system; the rise of Greek democracy demanded rational thought and brought the separation of science from religion; Muslim empire building brought the new mathematics; merchant capitalism brought colonialism and with it the classification of species and evolution; and modern capitalism subjugates science under the search for profit. The role of the individual in the process is discussed. Evidence is noted that science may enter a transition from supporting profit-driven enterprise to focusing on protection of the environment.

Reflections on the changing profile of science and knowledge

This paper constitutes a theoretical reflection on the gradually changing profile of science and knowledge, from a reflexive sociological and epistemological standpoint. The first part draws upon some relevant debates on the university, science, knowledge, and their so-called "reflexive turn". The analytic attention here is mainly focused on the sociological and epistemological significance of "knowledge of knowledge", the "naturalization" or "socialization" of epistemology and the multiple effects of social complexity. The second part seeks to comprehensively describe and critically discuss the two central phases of the radical wave of social scientific studies of science and technology. The first "descriptivist" phase is reflexively reconstructed in terms of a social theory of knowledge (social epistemology). The second "postmodern" phase is reflexively reconstructed in terms of a new sense of "knowledge politics". This new sense eventually gives technoscience the unique historical opportunity to creatively accomplish and boost its autonomy, within an ethics of epistemological weakness.

Scientific Controversies. A Socio-Historical Perspective on the Advancement of Science (2015)

320 pp. Routledge (Transaction) – In Scientific Controversies, Dominique Raynaud shows how organized debates in the sciences help us establish or verify our knowledge of the world. If debates focus on form, scientific controversies are akin to public debates that can be understood within the framework of theories of conflict. If they focus on content, then such controversies have to do with a specific activity and address the nature of science itself. Understanding the major focus of a scientific controversy is a first step toward understanding these debates and assessing their merits. Controversies of unique socio-historic context, disciplines, and characteristics are examined: Pasteur’s germ theory and Pouchet’s theory of spontaneous generation; vitalism advocated at Montpellier versus experimental medicine in Paris; the science of optics about the propagation of visual rays; the origins of relativism (the Duhem-Quine problem). Touching on the work of Boudon, Popper, and others, Raynaud puts forward an incrementalist theory about the advancement of science through scientific controversies. The debates Raynaud has selected share in common their pivotal importance to the history of the sciences. By understanding the role of controversy, we better understand the functioning of science and the stakes of the contemporary scientific debates.