Assumptions of Science

In this post, I want to explore some of the assumptions of science. Most of these are properly called "philosophical assumptions". Here's what I mean by "assumptions of science": the things that make science possible but are not properly speaking part of science. Something like that. Putting it a bit more technically, we might call these the necessary conditions for the very possibility of science. That is, what has to be the case about us, the world, etc. in order for science to be possible? Here are a few that jump at me. I will put an asterisk next to the ones I am not super-duper confident of but am somewhat confident of.
Nature is intelligible: The universe is such that it can be made sense of. That is, the universe is not such that it is unintelligible or irrational. If the universe were ultimately unintelligible, then science would not be possible. Or put differently, if the universe were unintelligible, then scientific knowledge would not be possible. Science would not deliver truths about the universe (or various things in the universe). 
Nature is uniform: The universe or nature operates in accordance with various laws or patterns. If such and such conditions obtain in one part of the universe and those same conditions obtain in another part of the universe, then the laws that govern the one part also govern the other part of the universe. Imagine if this were not so. What would follow?
The observable patterns are signs of unobservable patterns*: What we observe is a sign of an underlying reality that we do not observe. But since it is a sign of that unobserved reality, we can know all sorts of things about the unobservable parts of the universe--from the smallest stuff (quantum stuff) to the biggest stuff (general relativity stuff). 
The existence of the material world*: There is a universe that exists independently of us and our observations of that universe. If all creaturely observers went out of existence, that would not imply that the entire universe went out of existence. For example, if all humans (and sentient animals) went extinct, starts and planets and even mountains and atoms could still exist. 
Logic:  Science assumes that various rules of reasoning really work and are relevant for getting at the truth of things. For example, inconsistent theories cannot be true—incompatible theories cannot both be true, etc.
Normativity: This is connected to the logic assumption but should probably be kept distinct from it. There are certain forms of reasoning and practice that are legit and truth-conducive and other forms that are not. Furthermore, science assumes that truth is valuable.  
Our rational faculties can access the truth: Think of this one in relation to the first two or three above. That nature is intelligible and uniform does not imply that it is intelligible to us. It could be that nature is perfectly rational but it is so complicated that we will never be able to understand it. If that were true (in a deep way) then all of our theories would be ultimately false and not accurate descriptions or explanations of anything at a deep level of reality. So, science seems to assume not only that nature in intelligible but that it is intelligible to us. 
A principle of Sufficient Reason: Science seems to assume at least a weakened version of the PSR: every event has a cause. That is, events do not happen with no cause whatsoever. If they did, then science would not really be possible. 
Not Assumptions
Note that empiricism is not an assumption of science and neither is the claim that natural forces are the only explanation of natural phenomena.  
Question 1: Are there other assumptions of science that should be included?
Question 2: Are any of the above not really assumptions of science? 

Comments

  1. M. E. G.January 30, 2019 at 3:46 PM

    As previously stated, I believe another assumption of science should be the understanding that our knowledge may change and shift, due to the nature of science and its complexity. What we believe to be true now may be disproved in the future, so the assumption that in time, our knowledge could get more precise is possible. I dislike the idea that science has to be intelligible to us. That makes the assumption that we have the mental capacity to understand the full forces of science, when there may very well be some aspects we will never truly understand. It is prideful to say that for something to truly only be science, we must understand it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David KaemererJanuary 30, 2019 at 6:50 PM

      Nice post M.E.G.. The changing, updating and correction of humanity's scientific knowledge does seem to be something that has been played out through human history. But I do not think what you stated in your post is a necessary assumption for doing science. What you seem to be getting at is an observation of science and our understanding of it rather than assumption of science itself.

      To your second thought, you typed out that you disliked "the idea that science has to be intelligible to us". I am going to assume that you were referencing the first assumption of science listed in the reading, that Nature is intelligible. I think it is important in this discussion to make sure that the distinction between Nature and Science is known. Now onto the point you made in your post, I think I understand what you are getting at but I disagree with you. The assumption that Nature is intelligible is not an arrogant idea that all of the physical universe can be completely understood by human beings but simply that when doing science, there is the underlying assumption that the physical universe and its operations can be understood. If we can not assume that the universe and its operations can be correctly understood than how can we do science to begin with? Therefore, I believe this to be a reasonable assumption and one not to dislike but to embrace. Now M.E.G. you may very well be correct that there "may very well be some aspects we will never truly understand" in regards to the physical universe and its operations (I think this is what your were referencing even though you used the phrase "the full forces of science"). But your thought that our scientific understanding of the universe may have limitations does not take away from the assumption that Nature can be understood and is intelligible.

      Delete
  2. David KaemererJanuary 30, 2019 at 6:01 PM

    I currently do not have any other assumptions of science to add to the ones already listed in the reading above. I would like to commend the last two assumptions in particular, as they seem to be true statements on what is assumed when engaging in science. The assumption of Normativity is one that I think I would like to be explained out a little more. I thought all of the assumptions above seem legitimate and therefore I am not willing to call any of them out as not being assumptions of science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David KaemererJanuary 30, 2019 at 6:16 PM

      I just wanted to reply to this post to let those who see it know that I (David Kaemerer) was the one who posted it. I believe I have now setup my Blogger profile to where it will show my name on the posts I make.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lakatos and Thagard: Demarcation Problem

Lakatos-Falsification and Methodology Naïve Falsificationism (NF): Rules of Acceptance:  if T is falsifiable, the T is scientific. Rules of Falsification:  If some observation statement conflicts with T, then T is falsified. Sophisticated Falsificationsim (SF):  Rules of Acceptance:  T is scientific only if T has more empirical evidence than some other T* Rule of falsification:  T is falsified iff some other theory T* has greater predictive and explanatory power than T and is confirmed to some degree. Theoretically Progressive:  T is TP if T purports to take in more empirical data than some other theory T*. Empirically Progressive:  T is EP if T is TP and some of the excess empirical data is confirmed to some degree. Progressive Problemshift:  both TP and EP If a Problemshift is TP, then it is scientific, if not TP, then it is pseudoscientific So, some theory T is  pseudoscientific  if T is an alter...
Read more

Diverse Viewpoints: Should we be open?

There are lots of different factors in not only theory acceptance but also in accepting and maintaining various beliefs. One is acquiring relevant information about the topic. Another is acquiring and assessing different interpretation of that information. Another is comparing the theory or belief with other theories and other beliefs to see if they fit together well. In some cases, embracing a new idea or theory requires changes in one’s existing beliefs, and sometimes those changes seem too drastic. If embracing theory T means I have to change my belief that 2+2=4, then I ain’t embracing T. That seems perfectly rational. What theories should we really seriously consider? By that I mean, give them serious thought, and be open to changing our minds. Are there ideas, views, theories, that we should not give any serious attention to, even if they have defenders?  We mentioned the Alien-laser theory of drunk driving, but that is not defended by anyone as far as I know.  ...
Read more

Defeaters

Undercutting : where  E  is evidence for  H , an undercutting defeater is evidence which undermines the evidential connection between E and  H .  Rebutting : is evidence which prevents  E  from justifying belief in  H  by supporting not- H  in a more direct way.  In general: a. Moving from believing that p to believing that not p requires a rebutting defeater b. Moving from believing that p to not believing that p requires an undercutting defeater Note the difference between the scope of the 'not' in a. and the scope of the 'not' in b. In a. one believes something, namely, not p. In b. one does not believe something. The 'not' in b. is negating the believing, whereas the 'not' in a. is negating the thing that is believed.  Ok, given all of that, you should be able to explain the relevance of the following cases that Plantinga brings up in Chapter 6. Are they examples of undercutting or rebutting defe...
Read more