Chalmers, end of Ch. 2 & Ch. 3

(Originally written October 29, 2006 in Book 8)

What is this thing called science?
Alan Chalmers

Observable facts, objective but fallible

Observable facts are 'to some degree' fallible. All observable facts are open to revisions.

The basis for scientific knowledge is thus fallible and objective.

"They are objective in so far as they can be publicly tested by straight forward procedures, and they are fallible in so far as they may be undermined by new kinds of tests made possible by advances in science and technology"

Chapter Three - Experiment

Not just feels but relevant facts

Assumption - secure facts can be established by careful use of the senses

Science needs relevant facts, not simply facts

"Which facts are relevant and which are not relevant to a science will be relative to the correct state of development of that science" (Chalmers, 27)

Science asks the question, observation provides the answer.

Experimentation is necessary for scientific observation.

Experimentation is necessary for scientific observation.

Experimentation, not mere observation constitutes the basis for science.

The production and updating of experimental results

Experimental results are not straightforwardly given via the senses. They are recorded through complex processes.

Judgments about the data yielded through experimentation are not straightforward. Experiments are interpreted, thus subject to human elements.

Experimental facts and theory are interrelated and inextricable in many cases.

Experimental results are fallible.

Transforming the experimental base of science: historical examples

Theoretical and technological advances can lead to the debunking of formerly held scientific facts.

Experimental results are always subject to revision and improvement.

Experimental results are required to be:
1) adequate - accurate recordings of what happened
2) appropriate or significant

The acceptability of experimental results is theory-dependent.

Judgments about experimentation are subject to change as scientific understanding increases or develops.

Problems in experimentation are not always due to the human perception element of the process. The entire process of any experiment may be proven to be irrelevant by the development of a technology or theory.

The notion that science rests upon secure foundations is proved to be an absolute falsehood by the fact that experimentation is problematic. The real terrifying part of this is that it does not have anything to do with a faulty interpretation of human perception.

Experiment as an adequate basis for science

Experimental results are not straightforwardly given and are not absolute or completely secure.

Experiment are theory-dependent and subject to revision.

Knowledge based on experiment is thus proportionally fallible and revisable to its experimental basis.

Since theory is borne of experiment and experiment borne of theory, the circularity of science creates even more problems in its claim to a special status with the realm of knowledge.

Chalmers says that we must not criticize science so much to remove its special status. Linehan says that we ought to kick science in its nuts so as to remind it that it is merely one of many avenues to knowledge and not an exalted path either.