Related questions:
- Write short notes on these concepts: (a) conjecture and refutation (b) against method (c) hardcore theory (d) normal science
- Examine the scientific and philosophical issues involved in the principle of law and chance.
- Evaluate the issues of law and chance; pseudo and authentic science, in the “critical rationalists” tradition.
- What are the philosophical issues involved in science, theory, ideas and observation.
- “...science progresses by trial and elimination of errors”. With this in mind critically distinguish between law and chance.
INTRODUCTION
The concepts of law and chance play a very vital role in the determination of authentic and pseudo (fake) science respectively. In this write-up, these issues would be evaluated, as well as the ideas and responses of key critical rationalists.
THE CONCEPT OF “LAW” IN SCIENCE
“Laws” in science represent the creation and possession of theories which act as conditions by which scientific predictions can be made. Without these laws and theories, predictions cannot be made and science would be impossible. These laws are formed due to the regularities in nature, and they help in the discovery of truth. Hence, laws belong to the realm of authentic science.
THE CONCEPT OF “CHANCE” IN SCIENCE
“Chance” in science implies a subjective and inconsistent guess work which makes an idea to be insufficient for prediction. Unlike laws, there are no strict conditions by which science can be applied. Therefore, chance belongs to the realm of fake, pseudo and in-authentic science. Chance and probability are not the same, as probability depends on scientific evidence but chance does not.
THE VIEWS OF THE CRITICAL RATIONALISTS
The critical rationalists, whom are philosophers of science, each have their views on how the progress of science is made possible. The views of “Karl popper” a major critical rationalist is hereby analysed first;
· Karl Popper and his principle of “conjecture and refutation”
According to Karl Popper, “...science progresses by trial and error”. This implies that all scientific laws and theories are perceived as mere hypothesis, for there is always a possibility of falsifying them. Even when a conjectured hypothesis has been tested and corroborated, for Popper, it should still be viewed as a hypothesis (changeable idea) and not a law. Therefore, science progresses by constantly refuting (cancelling) conjectured theories and replacing them with new ones, and not building on formerly accepted laws.
THE RESPONSE OF OTHER CRITICAL RATIONALISTS
Now, concerning how science progresses, the ideas of other critical rationalists were responses against Karl Poppers idea of total cancellation of theories for new ones. The following would be considered:
i. Samuel Kuhn and his idea of “Normal science”.
ii. Paul Feyerabend and his principles of “anarchism”.
iii. Imre Lakatos and his “hard core theory”.
i. Samuel Kuhn – Normal Science
Kuhn believes that the central point in Popper’s thesis, which is falsification, is a misrepresentation of what scientists do in their day to day activities. A scientist must obey the requirements of “Normal science” which means, “a research that is firmly rooted and built upon one or more past scientific achievements”. In science, there is the need for some kind of stability, as theories are not what should be changed without a very fundamental cause.
ii. Paul Feyerabend – His Concept of “Anarchism”
“Anarchism” which implies, lawlessness and lack of organised control, represents Feyerabend’s attack on method in science, like Popper’s falsifiability and the likes. For him, basing science on strict methods and rules is against the advancement of science. Thus, for science to progress, it must embrace the principle of “anything goes”, as all ideas, no matter how ancient, mythical, modern or prejudiced, are capable of improving our knowledge.
iii. Imre Lakatos – His Hardcore Theory
The hardcore theory represents Lakatos’ methodology in science, which partially resembles Kuhn’s basic paradigm for scientists. For him, science progresses by the establishment of “hardcores”. A “hardcore” is a set of statements which are protected (secured) from refutation, when the need to modify some assumptions connected to it arises. Hence, even though anomalies (odds) may result from the application of these theories, they should not be refuted (cancelled) but those anomalies should be modified.
(YOUR PERSONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CRITICISMS)
CONCLUSION
Obviously, for science to thrive, it must be anchored on laws and not chance. On the other hand, Karl Poppers ideology of “falsification of theories” is against “laws” in science. Popper advocates for the growth of science, but he rejects both induction and probability which are crucial in scientific research. This contradiction which seems to support “chance” – inauthentic science, is what other critical rationalists where fighting against.
