SdA: El conocimiento científico by Irmina Majchrzak Szczepaniak

Science infers concrete propositions from phenomena and then makes generalizations. It is based on induction, which leads to the separation of science from philosophy and metaphysics, knowledge that explains nothing.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:05:42 UTC

Nevertheless, scientists start from assumptions about the world around them and their research into reality and truth. They can accept them without further ado, as research programs, focusing their intellectual effort on research, but they can also try to clarify the meaning of these assumptions, which, in the end, implies a philosophical type of research.

In times of normal science, they do not usually devote too much time to these questions; but in scientific crises, when the paradigm changes, it is unavoidable to better understand the assumptions, even modifying them if necessary.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:05:53 UTC

We can group these assumptions into those that have to do with the conception of reality and those that have to do with the capacity of scientific knowledge to offer a description of reality. Scientists, like any other human being, rely on beliefs to elaborate their ideas based on them.

Metaphysical assumptions. Science studies what is there, the world around us, be it natural or cultural, physical or biological, animal or human... In everyday life, as in scientific research, we understand each other well enough when we use the most general concepts, such as saying that something is reality and not fiction, or that a certain phenomenon, or person, was the cause of something happening.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:08:00 UTC

We also understand well when someone tells us that we are out of time or that we don't have enough space at home to store our personal belongings. However, if we want to understand with a certain level of rigor what we are referring to when we talk about reality, causality, space or time, the matter becomes more complicated. Augustine of Hippo said it well: "What is time? If no one asks me, I know. If I wanted to explain it to the one who asks me, I do not know."

Let us look at some questions posed by the sciences today.

Metaphysical assumption.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:10:04 UTC

What do we mean by reality?
Even if we accept that the world is real and not pure fiction, what is reality? Is it ultimately matter, which gives special relevance to physics, or must we admit that there are non-material realities? Can we speak of physical, chemical, biological, psychological and cultural levels of reality? What kind of reality do the four fundamental forces of physics have? And numbers? The questions can go on.
Every effect has a cause, and understanding the effect implies knowing the causes that have given rise to it, but what is causality? Is the force of gravity the cause of objects falling to the ground when nothing is holding them? Are there final causes that must be introduced into scientific explanation?
Events occur in space and time, and velocity, for example, is reduced to a formula relating space and time. After Einstein's theory of relativity, the space-time continuum demands a profound revision of what we understand by space and time.

Epistemological assumption. There are also epistemological assumptions, i.e., concerning human knowledge and the adequacy between the laws and theories that scientists discover and the reality to which these laws refer.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:12:39 UTC

Classical science maintained as an indisputable principle - on which it largely based its explanatory "superiority" with respect to that offered by other knowledge - that it was attentive to the facts, which could be observed by all spectators. Attentive to the facts, therefore, but what are the facts?

Epistemological assumption. The central problem is that of adequacy, with positions in a certain sense extreme:

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:13:55 UTC

Science only describes phenomena, what appears to us, without taking sides on the actual existence of those phenomena.

Science is realistic and assumes that laws and theories describe, conceptually of course, how things are and the relationships they have with each other.

It makes no sense to speak of truth; science either works or it does not work, so there is no reason to speak of truth. This is an instrumentalist conception of science.

This is closely related to a crucial problem of the scientific method, that of verification or contrasting. The explanatory power of science is largely based on the fact that its laws and theories can be verified or refuted, or even reinterpreted by limiting the field in which they are refutable and verifiable. Now, how do we verify or prove that a given hypothesis is true and can become a scientific law?

Current challenges of scientific research

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:16:07 UTC

Can the results of a scientist's research be decoupled from the subsequent application that people make of his or her discoveries and inventions?
Are there scientific researches whose main objective from the origin is bad, harmful, for some people, animals, for nature?
Should scientists think about the consequences of their discoveries? If any of the consequences were bad and harmful, should they stop their research?
Do you think it is right that Fritz Haber was awarded the Nobel Prize? Is it right to recognize the work of a scientist for one of his discoveries or inventions, or should the consequences of his research also be taken into account?

The ethical implications of scientific activity itself are varied, but we will focus on three that have a great impact on how science is understood and the role it plays:

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:19:40 UTC

Francis Bacon, in the 16th century, emphasized the utilitarian role of science, its transformative capacity.

Shortly afterwards, Thomas Hobbes affirmed that science is power, which entails very high risks due to the possible uses that can be made of it.

One of the first sociologists of science, Robert Merton, enumerated some institutional imperatives of science, what we can call an ethical code of science, which regulates the activity of scientists. According to him, there are four of them:

universalism: "The assertion that something is true must be subjected to pre-established impersonal criteria";
communism: "The findings of science are a product of social collaboration and are attributed to the community";
disinterestedness: that is, not seeking private profit, but the common welfare and contribution to the scientific endeavor, with a "firm basis in the public and verifiable character of science";
organized skepticism: "The suspension of judgment until data are available and the uncompromising examination of beliefs on the basis of empirical and logical criteria".

The relationship between scientific research and academic life has increased the pressure on researchers to achieve a good curriculum, endangering both the disinterestedness and universalism of which Merton speaks. Cases of fraud in scientific research have grown in recent decades.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:20:51 UTC

The quest for knowledge leads in some cases to experiments that raise serious ethical problems, especially when experiments are carried out on human beings or animals. Ethical codes proliferate in an attempt to establish rigorous criteria to avoid situations that violate fundamental rights.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:21:22 UTC

Scientists, who are well trained in the scientific method, often do not receive the same adequate training to solve the moral problems that are inherent to their activity. Even scientific activity itself can make them very insensitive to these moral problems because of this separation between facts and values.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:22:02 UTC

The intertwining of scientific research and industry, especially military industry, has led to highly conflictive moral situations. Secrecy and intellectual property rights clash with the publicity and collaboration inherent in science. Priorities in scientific research are determined by questionable industrial or military objectives, which often respond to particular interests that are alien to the global interests of humanity.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:23:28 UTC

In some branches of research, knowledge is being gained that may have considerable collateral effects. This is the case of genetic research (e.g. transgenic foods), artificial intelligence and robotics (approximation between robots and humans) or neurosciences (manipulation techniques).

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:24:50 UTC

The development of a technocratic and bureaucratized model of society may accentuate the gulf that separates cognitive elites (scientists) in close collaboration with political and economic elites from the rest of society.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:25:14 UTC

For Marx, it is possible to distinguish between ideology and science:

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:26:18 UTC

Ideology is a set of ideas elaborated by certain social groups, especially by the one exercising power, whose aim is to hide reality or distort it in order to reinforce its position of domination. Ideology is associated with error and falsehood.

Science, on the contrary, is the objective and critical study that allows human beings to discover reality and transform it. Science implies truth and veracity.

The above image may contribute to provide an idea of science as something immunized against the dangers that society may pose to scientific research. However, it cannot be forgotten that science is a social activity and, as such, is also a historical product, which blurs the difference between science and ideology.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:26:50 UTC

In each society, in each epoch, humanity has had to face specific problems that it has tried to solve. These problems have determined what was to be investigated and what was to be given priority. The selection of research objectives depended on the correlation of forces in society between different social groups. A simple example from the present day: much more effort is invested in curing cardiovascular diseases than in curing malaria.

On the other hand, the dominant ideas in a society condition how scientists approach problems.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:27:18 UTC

The feminist movement has drawn attention to the bias introduced into research by the patriarchal patterns of society; everything related to women has received different attention, offering a negative image of women, sometimes cloaked in "scientific" arguments.

Similarly, it is enough to look into topics such as the study of ethnic and cultural differences to discover how devastating biases, such as racism, have been introduced, passing them off as proven science.

The power associated with scientific activity gives rise to immense possibilities for social transformation, which contributes to the improvement of society, but at the same time increases the risks of an inappropriate use of this power.

imaj845_ — 2023-12-10 11:27:48 UTC

This raises a double reflection:

Science and scientists enjoy enormous social prestige and have managed to turn their research model into the sole and absolute criterion of truth: what scientists say is immediately accepted by society, which can hardly exercise criticism.

This is something that those in power are well aware of, and that is why they constantly appeal to the opinions of experts to settle any kind of discussion. Science ends up legitimizing what is there.

Science, exercised uncritically in coexistence with the dominant social forces, becomes an enterprise of social control and manipulation, thus advancing towards a one-dimensional society