A scientific theory is empirical[nb 17][85] and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.[nb 19] The philosopher of science Karl Popper
sharply distinguished truth from certainty. He wrote that scientific
knowledge "consists in the search for truth," but it "is not the search
for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore
uncertain."[86]:p4
New scientific knowledge rarely results in vast changes in our understanding. According to psychologist Keith Stanovich,
it may be the media's overuse of words like "breakthrough" that leads
the public to imagine that science is constantly proving everything it
thought was true to be false.[87]:119–138 While there are such famous cases as the theory of relativity
that required a complete reconceptualization, these are extreme
exceptions. Knowledge in science is gained by a gradual synthesis of
information from different experiments by various researchers across different branches of science; it is more like a climb than a leap.[87]:123
Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and
verified, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.[nb 20] For example, heliocentric theory, the theory of evolution, relativity theory, and germ theory still bear the name "theory" even though, in practice, they are considered factual.[88] Philosopher Barry Stroud adds that, although the best definition for "knowledge" is contested, being skeptical and entertaining the possibility
that one is incorrect is compatible with being correct. Ironically,
then, the scientist adhering to proper scientific approaches will doubt
themselves even once they possess the truth.[89] The fallibilist C. S. Peirce argued that inquiry is the struggle to resolve actual doubt and that merely quarrelsome, verbal, or hyperbolic doubt is fruitless[90]—but also that the inquirer should try to attain genuine doubt rather than resting uncritically on common sense.[91]
He held that the successful sciences trust not to any single chain of
inference (no stronger than its weakest link) but to the cable of
multiple and various arguments intimately connected.[92]
Stanovich also asserts that science avoids searching for a "magic bullet"; it avoids the single-cause fallacy. This means a scientist would not ask merely "What is the cause of ...", but rather "What are the most significant causes of ...". This is especially the case in the more macroscopic fields of science (e.g. psychology, physical cosmology).[87]:141–147 Of course, research often analyzes few factors at once, but these are always added to the long list of factors that are most important to consider.[87]:141–147
For example, knowing the details of only a person's genetics, or their
history and upbringing, or the current situation may not explain a
behavior, but a deep understanding of all these variables combined can
be very predictive.
No comments:
Post a Comment