What is this thing called science? Ch. 1

(Originally written October 15, 2006 in Book 8)

A.F. Chalmers

What is this thing called Science?
3rd Edition

"Like all young men I set out to be a genius, but mercifully laughter intervened."
-Clea Lawerence Durrell

Chapter 1 - Science as Knowledge derived from the facts of experience

(A widely held common sense view of science)

-Science is derived from the facts
-Science is special because it is based on facts
-It is unprejudiced sensory data
-Based on empirical data, not personal opinions
-Science is secure
-Science is objective
-J.J. Davies - "science is a structure built upon facts" (Chalmers, 1)

-H.D. Anthony claims it was as much Galileo's attitude as his experiments that uprooted tradition
-We must accept the facts first, then form theories of everything
-Modern scientists claim the birth of science as knowledge occurred in the 17th century. Prior to this everything was seen through Biblical and/or Aristotelian eyes
-Two groups have attempted to formalize the common view of science:
1. The Empiricists
2. The positivists

Empiricists (17th & 18th Century) Locke, Berkeley, Hume

Logical Positivists (Early 20th century) Followers of Auguste Comte

Both Empiricists and Logical positivists share the belief that scientific knowledge ought to be derived from observational facts.

Two distinct issues in the claim that science is derived from the facts:
1. The nature of the facts and how scientists are meant to have access to them
2. The laws and theories that constitute our knowledge and how they are derived for the obtained facts.

There are three components of the facts assumed to be the basis of common view of science:
"1. Facts are directly given to careful, unprejudiced observers via the senses.
2. Facts are prior and independent of theory.
3. Facts constitute a firm and reliable foundation for scientific knowledge" (Chalmers, 4).

At this point I must admit a prejudice against science. I do not feel swayed by its authority and am consciously or subconsciously looking for ammo to slay the dragon of science.

[Seeing is believing]

-Humans see with their eyes
-The lens and retina are the most important components of the eye
-The eye functions like a camera
-Optic nerves then carry the image to the cerebral cortex
-The brain's recording of data is what produces the culmination of sight

Empiricists use this account of sight in their scientific basis for two reasons:
1. A human observer has more or less direct access to facts
2. Two normal observers will see the same thing when observing the same object

[Visual experiences not determined solely by the object viewed]

Empiricists and common sense scientists hold that all we must do is observe the world and we thus obtain unprejudiced facts.

If this were true than visual experiences would be the basis for facts, but here is strong evidence that simply seeing an object is not the only factor in forming a mental picture and thus obtaining factual datum.

"Two normal observers viewing the same object from the same place under the same physical circumstances do not necessarily have identical visual experiences, even though the images on their respective retinas may be virtually identical" (Chalmers, 5).

The perceptual experiences of the past affect a person's current perceptual experience. Memory shapes vision.

If a face is hidden in a drawing of a tree the observer will see the tree and then upon further inspection will see the face. But, once the face has been seen the tree branches and leaves conform in our mind to the face. The visual data received by our eyeballs do not change, only our conception of the image. The raw data received by our observation cannot be the only basis for observation. Other factors play a part in our seeing the face versus seeing the tree.

Experienced observers of particular objects will see different things than novice observers when looking at the same object.

The common argument against this is that the people see the same thing, but interpret it differently.

But if they argue this than they are self-defeating. They claim that the physical act of sight is all that is needed for fact, but if interpretation is involved in the perception process than the physical act of seeing is not all that composes sight.

Chalmers claims that he is not:
1. Claiming physical images have nothing to do with sight.
2. People are incapable of seeing basically the same thing.

[Observable facts expressed as statements]

Linguistically, the word "fact" is very, very ambiguous.

I hate ambiguity!!! AAH!

Fact can refer to either a statement about "X" or it can refer to the actual state of affairs involving "X"

Scientific knowledge is supposedly based on the circumstances and not the statements.

"For those who wish to claim that knowledge is derived from the facts, they must have statements in mind, and neither perceptions nor objects like mountains and craters" (Chalmers, 10).

Factual statements, if they are based on factual observations as science claims, it still stands that the factual statements made are not derived through a direct experience with the sensory data. Therefore, to claim that science is special because it comes directly from observation is absurd.

Knowledge in a conceptual sense is required prior to making strong observational (factual) statements about observational experiences. Thus the notion that observation precedes knowledge is mistaken. At the very least a concept must be understood prior to knowledgable statements being uttered about a specific observation.

"The recording of observable facts requires more than the reception of the stimuli in the form of light rays that impinge on the eye. It requires the knowledge of the appropriate conceptual scheme and how to apply it. Statements of fact are not determined in a straightforward way by sensual stimuli and observations statements presuppose knowledge, so it cannot be the case that we first establish the facts and then derive our knowledge from them" (Chalmers, 12)

[Why should facts precede theory?]

It would be ridiculous to attempt to go and search for facts without first forming a theory and techniques. If we did this we would not have the slightest of clues where to even begin observation. Thus, theory must precede facts.

The truth or falsity of observational statements can be judged via observation and tested by theory and thus serve as scientific knowledge.

[The fallibility of observational statements]

Observational statements, even if they are factual, must be allowed to be fallible because observation is not always 100% reliable.

Observational facts and thus the scientific knowledge derived from them must be admitted to be fallible and subject to correction via improved scientific theories, methods or "facts".

"Science is derived from the facts" is the slogan that exalts science. Bust as we have seen, there are problems with derivation and the facts themselves.

Perceptions are always exposed to the background and expectations of the perceiver. This can destroy any notion of non-prejudicial observation.