Chapter 4 Natural Sciences. Lesson 1 Scientific Method, Hypothesis, Observation, and Knowledge Does...

Chapter 4 Natural Chapter 4 Natural SciencesSciences

Lesson 1 Scientific Method, Lesson 1 Scientific Method, Hypothesis, Observation, and Hypothesis, Observation, and

KnowledgeKnowledge

Does science really help us know as much as it seems?

ScienceScience

• Science is seen as a sign of progress Science is seen as a sign of progress and successand success

• It is a form of controlIt is a form of control • It has made us see and understand It has made us see and understand

the world differently than people of the world differently than people of the pastthe past

• The The scientific revolutionscientific revolution is as much a is as much a revolution in humankind’s way of revolution in humankind’s way of thinking as it is in our way of livingthinking as it is in our way of living

We are born into a world We are born into a world where…where…

• scientific knowledge—empirical knowledgescientific knowledge—empirical knowledge—is supreme—is supreme

• anything observable is fact and anything anything observable is fact and anything not observable is fantasynot observable is fantasy

• We think scientificallyWe think scientifically • When we behave sanely and acceptably, When we behave sanely and acceptably,

we behave rationally and logicallywe behave rationally and logically • We respect scientists and honour comes We respect scientists and honour comes

through scientific meansthrough scientific means

However, dHowever, does science really oes science really give us knowledge?give us knowledge?

• Some will say immediately that it doesSome will say immediately that it does • Some will argue that it only gives us a Some will argue that it only gives us a

strong beliefstrong belief • Some will argue that science only Some will argue that science only

allows us to control our surroundings, allows us to control our surroundings, but as far as important knowledge is but as far as important knowledge is concerned, it falls shortconcerned, it falls short

• What do you think?What do you think?

The aims of this chapter are The aims of this chapter are to…to…

• Examine how we know what we know in Examine how we know what we know in sciencescience

• Understand what is actually being said Understand what is actually being said when a scientist says she “knows” when a scientist says she “knows” somethingsomething

• Examine the problems with knowledge Examine the problems with knowledge claims in science as well as the process claims in science as well as the process involved in developing scientific claims that involved in developing scientific claims that seem soundseem sound

Knowledge through Theory and Knowledge through Theory and ObservationObservation

• Science is based on observationScience is based on observation• However However human beings observe similar stimuli differentlyhuman beings observe similar stimuli differently • CopernicusCopernicus observed that the horizon was actually falling observed that the horizon was actually falling

away from the sun, while Ptolemy saw the sun moving up away from the sun, while Ptolemy saw the sun moving up above a stable unmoving horizonabove a stable unmoving horizon

Is the sun moving up or is the horizon falling down away from the sun?

The Scientific MethodThe Scientific Method or or “the “the best way” to get true best way” to get true

statements about the natural statements about the natural worldworld • 1. 1. Observe some phenomenon in the universeObserve some phenomenon in the universe

• 2. 2. Invent a tentative description or answer, called Invent a tentative description or answer, called a a hypothesishypothesis, that is consistent with what has , that is consistent with what has been observedbeen observed

• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or 4. Test those predictions by experiments or

further observations and alter the hypothesis in further observations and alter the hypothesis in the light of the resultsthe light of the results ’ ’

• 5. 5. Repeat steps 2, 3 and 4 until there are no Repeat steps 2, 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observationand/or observation

The scientific method is The scientific method is successful, however there are successful, however there are

problems.problems.• First step in the scientific method is First step in the scientific method is direct direct

observationobservation • Observation seems simple enough, but observation Observation seems simple enough, but observation

is not unproblematicis not unproblematic • Consider again the example of Copernicus and Consider again the example of Copernicus and

Ptolemy. They both correctly recorded what they Ptolemy. They both correctly recorded what they observed, but there observances were contrary to observed, but there observances were contrary to one anotherone another

• This is indeed a paradox.This is indeed a paradox. If all science is based on If all science is based on observation, and what one observes can be different observation, and what one observes can be different depending on the theories or expectations one has, depending on the theories or expectations one has, then how sound is the knowledge one actually gets?then how sound is the knowledge one actually gets?

The Influence of Theory on The Influence of Theory on ExperienceExperience

• Theories are present in Theories are present in every part of our experienceevery part of our experience as they were for as they were for Copernicus Copernicus and Ptolemyand Ptolemy

• Whether we see a duck or a Whether we see a duck or a rabbit depends on what we rabbit depends on what we expect to seeexpect to see

• Theoretical preconceptions Theoretical preconceptions are with us all the time and are with us all the time and they have some sort of they have some sort of effect on observations made effect on observations made during scientific during scientific investigationsinvestigations

Duck-Rabbit Illusion

What this means for What this means for knowledge in science is thatknowledge in science is that

• If all experience is influenced by theories and If all experience is influenced by theories and preconceived notions, then it is impossible to preconceived notions, then it is impossible to make observations which are not in some make observations which are not in some way contaminated by these theories and way contaminated by these theories and preconceived notionspreconceived notions

• Subsequently, if a scientist is to test theories Subsequently, if a scientist is to test theories and hypotheses by making observations and and hypotheses by making observations and the observations are tainted by the theories, the observations are tainted by the theories, how objective can the observations and the how objective can the observations and the conclusions actually be?conclusions actually be?

• Can this possibly lead to objective Can this possibly lead to objective knowledge?knowledge?

How theories influence what is How theories influence what is noticednoticed

• It can be argued that observation is a process It can be argued that observation is a process that is guided by our theories and hypothesesthat is guided by our theories and hypotheses

• These theories actually direct our observations by These theories actually direct our observations by making us aware of which stimuli are significant making us aware of which stimuli are significant and which are insignificantand which are insignificant

• Science works by observing specifics; by finding Science works by observing specifics; by finding data which will either confirm or disconfirm our data which will either confirm or disconfirm our specific theories and hypothesesspecific theories and hypotheses

• Scientists do not “drag the bottom” with a net Scientists do not “drag the bottom” with a net hoping to find something valuablehoping to find something valuable

• If a scientist is going to observe something the If a scientist is going to observe something the first step is deciding what to observefirst step is deciding what to observe

Important points Important points

• Without any theory or hypothesis it would be Without any theory or hypothesis it would be impossible to observe anything at all significantimpossible to observe anything at all significant

• Without theories guiding the observation Without theories guiding the observation process, random observations would be useless process, random observations would be useless at confirming or disconfirming hypothesesat confirming or disconfirming hypotheses

• Because of this, Because of this, it is possible the scientist only it is possible the scientist only notices what he expects to seenotices what he expects to see

• It is also possible that he can only discover It is also possible that he can only discover things when they correspond to or conflict with things when they correspond to or conflict with what he expected to discover in the first placewhat he expected to discover in the first place

Real life examples illustrating Real life examples illustrating this phenomenonthis phenomenon

• Professor Wilhelm Professor Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen Conrad Roentgen and the surprising and the surprising discovery of X-rays.discovery of X-rays.

• Alexander Fleming Alexander Fleming and his lucky and his lucky discovery of discovery of penicillinpenicillin

Early X-ray photos. The left image is of

Mrs. Roentgen’s

hand

Is observation really the key to Is observation really the key to scientific knowledge?scientific knowledge?

• How many amazing life-improving How many amazing life-improving discoveries have we missed out on discoveries have we missed out on because the scientists have been because the scientists have been limited to confirming or disconfirming limited to confirming or disconfirming their theories, while other significant their theories, while other significant facts are ignored or not observed? facts are ignored or not observed?

• Is it possible that the scientific method Is it possible that the scientific method itself actually limits scientific discovery?itself actually limits scientific discovery?

Critique of these two claimsCritique of these two claims

• We can count on our observations most of We can count on our observations most of the timethe time

• Observation is the only tool a scientist has Observation is the only tool a scientist has for coming in contact with the universe. for coming in contact with the universe. What other choice is there?What other choice is there?

• Examining the success rate of scientists Examining the success rate of scientists from a pragmatic perspective it becomes from a pragmatic perspective it becomes clear that their observations are correct a clear that their observations are correct a great deal of the timegreat deal of the time

• There is only a limited amount of flexibility There is only a limited amount of flexibility in our observationsin our observations

Critique of these two claims Critique of these two claims (contd.)(contd.)

• When a scientist directs his attention When a scientist directs his attention towards one thing it does not towards one thing it does not necessarily mean that he will exclude necessarily mean that he will exclude himself from discovering something elsehimself from discovering something else

• It is a necessity to direct our attention It is a necessity to direct our attention towards something specific because at towards something specific because at any given moment we are literally any given moment we are literally inundated with stimuliinundated with stimuli

Lesson 2 InductionLesson 2 Induction

Induction and its Importance to Induction and its Importance to ScienceScience

• Induction is Induction is making predictions about making predictions about future events based on past future events based on past experiencesexperiences

• This is exactly what science does.This is exactly what science does.

• Science would not work at all if what Science would not work at all if what was expected to happen never did was expected to happen never did happenhappen

The problem with inductive The problem with inductive reasoningreasoning

• The problem with inductive reasoning is that there The problem with inductive reasoning is that there really is no way to tell the future and just because really is no way to tell the future and just because something has happened many times in the past something has happened many times in the past does not mean it does not mean it MUST MUST happen again in the futurehappen again in the future

• There is no physical law which forces events to take There is no physical law which forces events to take place on account that they have taken place beforeplace on account that they have taken place before

• The paradox of science is that science is totally The paradox of science is that science is totally based on making predictions about future events based on making predictions about future events based on past experience, but there are no grounds based on past experience, but there are no grounds for assuming that because something has for assuming that because something has happened in the past that it must happen again in happened in the past that it must happen again in the futurethe future

• Can anyone claim to really know anything Can anyone claim to really know anything scientifically?scientifically?

David Hume: Inductive David Hume: Inductive reasoning is irrationalreasoning is irrational

• Science falls into the category Science falls into the category of of expectational knowledgeexpectational knowledge

• Hume asserted is that it is Hume asserted is that it is irrational for us to believe that irrational for us to believe that all of these things will happen all of these things will happen again in the future again in the future ((unobserved instancesunobserved instances) just ) just because they have happened because they have happened in the past.in the past.

• Hume had two main problems Hume had two main problems with inductionwith induction

David Hume 1711-1776

Hume’s first problem with Hume’s first problem with induction: The Logical probleminduction: The Logical problem

• The Logical ProblemThe Logical Problem. Hume asks . Hume asks the question: Are we logically the question: Are we logically justified in reasoning from justified in reasoning from instances we have experienced instances we have experienced repeatedly (i.e. success with a repeatedly (i.e. success with a vaccine, (to give a modern vaccine, (to give a modern example)) to instances of which example)) to instances of which we have no experience (i.e. that we have no experience (i.e. that the vaccine will work next time)? the vaccine will work next time)?

• His answer to this is a definite His answer to this is a definite “No!” There is no logical “No!” There is no logical justification whatsoever. justification whatsoever.


Hume’s second problem with Hume’s second problem with induction: The induction: The Psychological Psychological

ProblemProblem• The Psychological ProblemThe Psychological Problem. .

The question here is: Given The question here is: Given the fact that induction is so the fact that induction is so illogical, why do all people, illogical, why do all people, even reasonable people, like even reasonable people, like scientists, believe that scientists, believe that unobservable events (future unobservable events (future outcomes or other instances outcomes or other instances which they have not which they have not experienced directly) will experienced directly) will conform to past events of conform to past events of which they have experienced? which they have experienced?


Hume’s answer to: Hume’s answer to: The The Psychological ProblemPsychological Problem

• We think this way because We think this way because we have been conditioned we have been conditioned to think this way through to think this way through association.association.

• We are conditioned through We are conditioned through repetitionrepetition

• It may not be rational, but It may not be rational, but inductive reasoning is inductive reasoning is necessary for survivalnecessary for survival


Hume’s assertionHume’s assertion

• What Hume argues is that we have no What Hume argues is that we have no rational reason to believe that rational reason to believe that induction actually gives us knowledge. induction actually gives us knowledge. Since science is based on induction, Since science is based on induction, Hume argues that there is no rational Hume argues that there is no rational reason to believe that science actually reason to believe that science actually gives us “real” knowledge. We simply gives us “real” knowledge. We simply believe it because we are habitually believe it because we are habitually used to living our lives by way of used to living our lives by way of inductive reasoning.inductive reasoning.

Popper and falsificationPopper and falsification

• Agrees with Hume that Agrees with Hume that induction is irrationalinduction is irrational

• Asserts science is about Asserts science is about regularities.regularities.

• Knowledge comes from Knowledge comes from finding counter-instances.finding counter-instances.

• A counter-instance is an A counter-instance is an instance in which disproves instance in which disproves the regularitythe regularity

Karl Popper 1902-1994

Knowledge through Knowledge through falsificationfalsification• Popper asserts “Logic Popper asserts “Logic

forces us to reject even forces us to reject even the most successful law the most successful law the moment we accept the moment we accept one single counter one single counter instance”instance”

• To find knowledge in science To find knowledge in science Popper argues that we must Popper argues that we must instead look for counter instead look for counter instances, or, in other words, instances, or, in other words, instances which disprove the instances which disprove the law or regularitylaw or regularity


What this implies is…What this implies is…

• Nothing can actually be proven Nothing can actually be proven true and the strength of science true and the strength of science lies in its meticulous ability to lies in its meticulous ability to falsify assumptionsfalsify assumptions

• A scientist tries to find instances A scientist tries to find instances where his hypothesis does not where his hypothesis does not hold truehold true

• The more he tries to falsify it, and The more he tries to falsify it, and the more he and other people fail the more he and other people fail to falsify it, the sounder and more to falsify it, the sounder and more probable the claim becomesprobable the claim becomes

• Eventually when enough people Eventually when enough people have failed to falsify the claim, the have failed to falsify the claim, the claim becomes accepted as claim becomes accepted as knowledgeknowledge


What this implies is…What this implies is…(contd.)(contd.)• Science hopes to find Science hopes to find

theories that are true. theories that are true. • While actual “truth” may not While actual “truth” may not

be fully possible to be fully possible to determine, it is possible to determine, it is possible to eliminate the false theories, eliminate the false theories, and the more the theory in and the more the theory in question holds up to the question holds up to the process of falsification, the process of falsification, the more likely it is to be true. more likely it is to be true.

• At least any belief in the At least any belief in the theory will be a more firmly theory will be a more firmly founded belief.founded belief.


Lesson 3 Science and Lesson 3 Science and PseudosciencePseudoscience

PseudosciencePseudoscience

• A pseudoscience is, A pseudoscience is, any body of any body of knowledge, knowledge, methodology, or methodology, or practice that is practice that is mistakenly thought mistakenly thought of as scienceof as science

Recognising a Recognising a PseudosciencePseudoscience

Asserting claims or theories Asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous unconnected to previous

experimental resultsexperimental results

• If something is to be classified as If something is to be classified as “scientific” it must have been tested “scientific” it must have been tested through experimentthrough experiment

• This is not done in pseudoscienceThis is not done in pseudoscience

Asserting claims which cannot Asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsifiedbe verified or falsified

• Pseudoscience makes Pseudoscience makes claims that can neither claims that can neither be falsified nor verifiedbe falsified nor verified

• Many claims made by Many claims made by pseudoscience can not pseudoscience can not be tested at allbe tested at all

Asserting claims which Asserting claims which contradict experimentally contradict experimentally

established resultsestablished results • Simple and Simple and

straightforward. A straightforward. A pseudoscience often pseudoscience often makes claims that makes claims that contradict facts contradict facts which are proven.which are proven. “Prove it!” Sceptic James Randi

offers $1,000,000 for conclusive proof

of paranormal ability such as ESP

Failing to provide an Failing to provide an experimental possibility of experimental possibility of reproducible resultsreproducible results • The ability to The ability to

replicate results is replicate results is key in science. key in science. Pseudoscience fails Pseudoscience fails to provide to provide reproducible reproducible results.results.

Failing to submit results to Failing to submit results to peer-review before making peer-review before making public claimspublic claims • Responsible scientific claims are Responsible scientific claims are

scrutinized by knowledgeable peers scrutinized by knowledgeable peers before the claims are made public. before the claims are made public. This does not happen in This does not happen in pseudoscience.pseudoscience.

Little or no evolution of the Little or no evolution of the field and its claims since its field and its claims since its

beginningbeginning • A pseudoscience is A pseudoscience is

stagnate. The stagnate. The “science” does not “science” does not develop. The develop. The knowledge claims knowledge claims stay the same as stay the same as they always have they always have beenbeen

Pseudoscience is often Pseudoscience is often motivated by commercial goalsmotivated by commercial goals

• Money Money Money Money Money! Money!

• Money is almost Money is almost always involved in always involved in pseudoscientific pseudoscientific claimsclaims Who profits from pseudoscience?

Is pseudoscience without Is pseudoscience without value?value?

• Maybe. Maybe. Just because pseudoscientific Just because pseudoscientific claims have not been verified, it does claims have not been verified, it does not mean that they are not truenot mean that they are not true

• Many questions can not be answered Many questions can not be answered by science. Maybe pseudoscience is by science. Maybe pseudoscience is of value in this senseof value in this sense

Things to keep in mindThings to keep in mind

• An extra helping of critical thinking is An extra helping of critical thinking is imperative when considering imperative when considering pseudoscientific claimspseudoscientific claims

• If it seems too good to be true it If it seems too good to be true it probably isprobably is

• If someone has something to gain by If someone has something to gain by their pseudoscientific claims, then their pseudoscientific claims, then they are likely out for gainthey are likely out for gain

Lesson 4 Faith in ScienceLesson 4 Faith in Science

“Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.”Adam Smith (1723-90) Scottish economist.

The Wealth of Nations, 1776.

The role of scienceThe role of science• As the world becomes all As the world becomes all

the more secular, science is the more secular, science is given an increasingly given an increasingly important role in our important role in our societysociety

• Science replaces Science replaces traditions traditions which have been with which have been with human civilisation for many human civilisation for many centuries such ascenturies such as voodoo voodoo and the belief in ghostsand the belief in ghosts

• If something is not If something is not observable or measurable observable or measurable it is not realit is not real

How science worksHow science works

• Science has taught us to believe what is Science has taught us to believe what is observable and to reject that which is not observable and to reject that which is not observableobservable

• This belief is the cornerstone and the This belief is the cornerstone and the strength of science since it helps the strength of science since it helps the scientist avoid bias and it gives pragmatic, scientist avoid bias and it gives pragmatic, useful informationuseful information

• Science rejects claims Science rejects claims that can not be that can not be backed up with empirical databacked up with empirical data

Faith? Faith?

• Many traditional areas make Many traditional areas make knowledge claims based on faithknowledge claims based on faith

• What about science? Is there What about science? Is there room room for faith in sciencefor faith in science??

• Can knowledge claims in science be Can knowledge claims in science be based on faith?based on faith?

• It dependsIt depends

No Faith in Science/Faith is No Faith in Science/Faith is always in sciencealways in science

• The following parts of The following parts of this lesson consists this lesson consists of two contrasting of two contrasting speeches/essays speeches/essays which are designed which are designed to be read aloud in to be read aloud in class.class.

• Discussion questions Discussion questions follow follow

• Images from the two Images from the two speeches/essays are speeches/essays are included hereincluded here


Would we get here by faith alone?


This telescope in Hawaii just helps us observe what is really there.


Who has actually seen an atom anyway?


This is how luminiferous aether was supposed to have worked.

Lesson 5 Does Science Give Us Lesson 5 Does Science Give Us Real Knowledge?Real Knowledge?

Is the “truth” out there?

The influence of scienceThe influence of science

• Science has affected every aspect of our Science has affected every aspect of our liveslives

• Try for a moment to think of something Try for a moment to think of something you know or do, which is not, in some way, you know or do, which is not, in some way, affected by science or scientific thinkingaffected by science or scientific thinking

• But, do all But, do all of these changes, all of this of these changes, all of this science and scientific thinking, actually science and scientific thinking, actually give us any real knowledge?give us any real knowledge?

Some will say “Yes, Some will say “Yes, obviously”obviously”

• Because Because it allows us to do so very it allows us to do so very much more than we could if we did much more than we could if we did not know the scientific things we do not know the scientific things we do knowknow

However…However…

• There is a chance though that we are mistaking There is a chance though that we are mistaking being able to control our environment with being able to control our environment with knowing our environmentknowing our environment

• Perhaps we are mistaking describing the world Perhaps we are mistaking describing the world around us with knowing the world around usaround us with knowing the world around us

• Perhaps science does not give us any real Perhaps science does not give us any real knowledge about the things which are important knowledge about the things which are important to humanityto humanity

• What happens when we die? Why are we here? What happens when we die? Why are we here? What does beauty and love mean? Why do the What does beauty and love mean? Why do the stars and planets exist?stars and planets exist?

• Is science dehumanising? Is science dehumanising? • Is it simply a good tool?Is it simply a good tool?

Positivist: Science gives us Positivist: Science gives us knowledgeknowledge

• Knowledge is knowing how Knowledge is knowing how to navigate through our to navigate through our environment. Science is the environment. Science is the tool that helps us do this tool that helps us do this tasktask

• Science is pragmatic in this Science is pragmatic in this sense. Things in the world sense. Things in the world either work or they do noteither work or they do not

• By seeing if it works or not, By seeing if it works or not, observer will observer will knowknow if the if the technique was a good one technique was a good one or a bad oneor a bad one

Measurement. Precision: Predictability. These are the keys to knowledge.

Positivist: Science gives us Positivist: Science gives us knowledgeknowledge (contd.) (contd.)

• Nature is out there whether we are here to observe Nature is out there whether we are here to observe it or notit or not

• Scientists are predators looking for facts about how Scientists are predators looking for facts about how the world works away from their own subjective the world works away from their own subjective interpretationsinterpretations

• Scientists are observing what is out there. They do Scientists are observing what is out there. They do not create the things which they observe, like a not create the things which they observe, like a poet does a poempoet does a poem

• The reason science creates real knowledge is The reason science creates real knowledge is because it makes clear relationships about the real because it makes clear relationships about the real worldworld

• There is no room in this process for subjectivityThere is no room in this process for subjectivity


• Science also produces real knowledge Science also produces real knowledge since the knowledge works for everyonesince the knowledge works for everyone

• Ambiguity is fine for poems, but when Ambiguity is fine for poems, but when going to the doctor, or when getting going to the doctor, or when getting energy from the local nuclear power energy from the local nuclear power plant, what is needed is not ten plant, what is needed is not ten different interpretations but one different interpretations but one answeranswer

• Science is about answersScience is about answers


• Science produces knowledge because it is Science produces knowledge because it is objectiveobjective

• It obtains this objectivity and rationality to It obtains this objectivity and rationality to a great extent from its meticulous a great extent from its meticulous method method of confirmationof confirmation

• If we can predict an outcome, then confirm If we can predict an outcome, then confirm our prediction with indisputable empirical our prediction with indisputable empirical data, we have confirmed our knowledge data, we have confirmed our knowledge about the worldabout the world


• RepeatabilityRepeatability is the key to, is the key to, and the strength of, scienceand the strength of, science

• When an experiment has When an experiment has been successfully repeated been successfully repeated enough times a scientist enough times a scientist knows that his knowledge is a knows that his knowledge is a reflection of how things really reflection of how things really are, and not how someone are, and not how someone just believes or wants them to just believes or wants them to bebe

• Another way to show that Another way to show that science actually produces science actually produces knowledge is that scientists knowledge is that scientists can can predict predict the outcome of the outcome of events. events.

• PredictabilityPredictability is the proof of is the proof of knowledgeknowledge

There is no proof in this pudding.

That’s what predictability is for.


• Science has a self-correcting mechanism built Science has a self-correcting mechanism built into its structureinto its structure

• no theory can ever be completely proven true no theory can ever be completely proven true because there is always a possibility that in some because there is always a possibility that in some circumstance the processes that have always circumstance the processes that have always worked will not work or will work differentlyworked will not work or will work differently

• knowledge in science is only knowledge until knowledge in science is only knowledge until some discovered fact proves that which we some discovered fact proves that which we thought was true to be incorrectthought was true to be incorrect

• Because of this, the knowledge in science Because of this, the knowledge in science increases constantlyincreases constantly

Romantic: Real knowledge? Romantic: Real knowledge? NoNo • It is rather ironic that It is rather ironic that

science has spent so science has spent so much time refuting the much time refuting the claims of religion while at claims of religion while at the same time it tries to the same time it tries to answer many of the very answer many of the very same questions that same questions that religion answersreligion answers

• Has science become a Has science become a religion?religion?

Will science help us know this or merely describe it?

Romantic: Real knowledge? No Romantic: Real knowledge? No (contd.)(contd.)

• Science is not a useful toolScience is not a useful tool

• Many of us benefit from using the toolMany of us benefit from using the tool

• However what is important to remember is However what is important to remember is that science is merely a tool and nothing that science is merely a tool and nothing moremore

• It teaches us how to manipulate our It teaches us how to manipulate our environmentenvironment

• But there is no real understanding behind But there is no real understanding behind the processthe process


• Science prides itself on measurement but, Science prides itself on measurement but, how successful can science be at how successful can science be at measuring love or hope?measuring love or hope?

• What does it know about living life as a What does it know about living life as a human being and finding comfort in the human being and finding comfort in the love of another person?love of another person?

• Is not love real? Yet, it cannot be Is not love real? Yet, it cannot be measuredmeasured

• Being human is about love, inspiration, Being human is about love, inspiration, fear, hope, and desire. Not empirical fear, hope, and desire. Not empirical numbers filled out on some chartnumbers filled out on some chart


• Living is about being subjectiveLiving is about being subjective • However However science has nothing but science has nothing but

contempt for everything subjective contempt for everything subjective because the subjective is because the subjective is inaccessible to scienceinaccessible to science

• In this sense, the human experience In this sense, the human experience is inaccessible for scienceis inaccessible for science

• Science is dehumanisingScience is dehumanising


• Science is a way to Science is a way to describe things. It is a describe things. It is a wonderful wonderful descriptive tooldescriptive tool

• Science has mistaken Science has mistaken description for truly description for truly understandingunderstanding

• Science is about control, it Science is about control, it is not about is not about comprehensioncomprehension

Perhaps quarks do look like this. Then what?


• Truly important questions about our Truly important questions about our existence are not only unanswered by existence are not only unanswered by science, but can not be answered by sciencescience, but can not be answered by science

• Everything must be observable in science. Everything must be observable in science. But everything is not observable when it But everything is not observable when it comes to human beingscomes to human beings

• Are not our feelings and thoughts more real Are not our feelings and thoughts more real than quarks or strange things like dark than quarks or strange things like dark energy which we will never see?energy which we will never see?


• Science is a useful toolScience is a useful tool• But it is important that we keep But it is important that we keep

science in the right perspective and science in the right perspective and not look to it for the answers to the not look to it for the answers to the really important questionsreally important questions

• If we keep this in mind then we can If we keep this in mind then we can make use of the tool of science and make use of the tool of science and benefit from itbenefit from it

Date post:	12-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cleopatra-gaines
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Chapter 4 Natural Sciences. Lesson 1 Scientific Method, Hypothesis, Observation, and Knowledge Does...

Documents