Philosophy of Science: Scepticism vs Scientism

Study Notes

Science is a human achievement that seemingly doesn't have borders, and it strives to provide a constantly improving understanding of reality.
The philosophy of scientism promotes the idea that scientific laws are the ultimate source of certainty in acquiring knowledge.
Despite the advancements of science, there's still a significant amount of knowledge that remains unknown.
Human perception can be flawed, leading to errors in judgment. This is referred to as the "crooked mirror" or "enchanted glass" effect.

Sceptics argue that science has become overly dominant in defining truth and knowledge.
They claim that science relies on faith rather than definitive proof.
Sceptics criticize contemporary science by associating it with failures of historical ideologies like the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment.
They believe that scientific observations lack objectivity and are influenced by societal biases.
Sceptics embrace a broader perspective on knowledge, arguing that any approach, including those outside science, should be considered valid.

The text cites "Watt, J.H.& van den Berg, S.(2002)" as a source for this section.

We are naturally curious about understanding how things work, seeking explanations and predicting outcomes. This innate curiosity is referred to as "naïve science".
Naïve science involves developing theories to explain observed phenomena.
A theory is defined as a set of interconnected concepts, definitions, and propositions that systematically explain specific phenomena.
Theories specify relationships between variables, aiming to explain and predict outcomes.
Variables are elements that can vary in value, intensity, or state.
Concepts (constructs) are mental representations of these varying elements.
Humans instinctively strive to explain observed phenomena, finding unexplained events unsettling.
The theoretical understanding of reality is limited by the level of confidence in its accuracy.
The process of developing and testing theories presents many opportunities for error.
The scientific method is a formalized and systematic approach to collecting and summarizing information, aiming to improve the rigor of naïve theories.

The key difference lies in the awareness of potential errors in observations and reasoning, and the implementation of strategies to mitigate those errors.
Five main differences between naïve inquiry and the scientific method are:
1. Theory development.
2. Theory testing.
3. Control of alternative explanations.
4. Nature of relationships.
5. Testing theories with observable evidence.

Naïve scientists may select concepts as causes based on personal biases or convictions, without rigorous analysis.
Scientists employ a systematic approach to select relevant concepts, eliminating irrelevant ones.
Naïve scientists tend to rely on their own observations and interpretations of reality.

Naïve scientists consider theories as "self-evident" truths and may not conduct further testing.
Scientists prioritize obtaining objective evidence and employ methods to ensure reproducibility of findings.

Naïve scientists often fail to consider alternative explanations for observed phenomena.
Scientists attempt to control for confounding factors, reducing the influence of alternative explanations.

Naïve inquiries often focus on simple cause-and-effect relationships.
Scientists explore complex relationships between variables, considering interactions and feedback loops.

Naïve scientists may accept their theories based on limited evidence or anecdotal observations.
Scientists use controlled experiments and systematic data collection methods to test their theories rigorously.