Raymo on the Nature of Science
For science to be possible, we must make two assumptions: (1) That the world exists independently of our knowledge of it; and (2) that we can know the world with ever increasing verisimilitude. As obviously true as these statements might seem, in fact their veracity has been long and vigorously debated by philosophers. Nevertheless, they are the foundation upon which all of science rests. The manifest success of science speaks powerfully of the practical utility of these two assumptions, if not of their truth.
Science is a collective path toward knowledge, a path which–as much as we can make it so–is independent of local cultures, the beliefs of parents and teachers, religion, politics. It is a path that holds the image of the world we carry in our heads against the refining fire of experience. Not just any experience but a special kind of experience called experiment, which, if properly performed and communicated, can be repeated with the same result by any other person equipped with the requisite tools. Science tries as hard to prove an idea wrong as to prove it right. Science requires us to assert our beliefs cautiously, skeptically, tentatively, and be willing to surrender a belief when the collective engine of affirmation fails. Although no one would claim that science is an infallible guarantor of truth, it is the most effective way the human species has yet devised for making reliable mental images of the world.
[Chet Raymo, Walking Zero: Discovering Cosmic Space and Time Along the Prime Meridian, New York : Walker & Co, 2006; p. 3. Italics in original.]
I'm reading this book as part of our Science-Book Challenge 2008. Read any good science books lately?
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Sunday, 27 January 2008 at 22.42
Permalink
>>Read any good science books lately?
Now that you ask, I haven't. I don't seem to have the chops for books at the moment. My attention span is really short lately.
>>Science is a collective path toward knowledge, a path which–as much as we can make it so–is independent of local cultures, the beliefs of parents and teachers, religion, politics.
I like this quote, but I'm wondering how much independence science can claim, especially when the knowledge generated is used for nefarious purposes.
on Sunday, 27 January 2008 at 22.57
Permalink
For the short-attention span crowd, there's always the ever excellent series of science essays: the Best American Science and Nature Writing annual. I'd love to have a book note or two on some of those volumes….
Big-"s" science, I think, can claim quite a bit of ultimate independence, when the strategic shake-out of false claims and unverifiable results takes place. It can take time, it can work better or worse (particularly depending on the discipline involved), although the process seems to work pretty well. Of course, there have been lots of challenges in some arenas in the past decade or more of science being bent to serve political and corporate desires, and for nefarious purposes. That certainly doesn't help maintain its independence overall.
However, I remain optimistic that science independence will ultimately prevail, and I am making it my work to do what I can to involve non-scientists in helping to keep science independent in that sense. (That may explain my optimism, of course!)