At least in the fruits of science; it's applications; in
technology.
in fact we do trust . . . even the Amish I say (it's 19th century
tech. they trust, which is also science based).
that the plane will stay aloft
my car will bring me to Alma on time
the lights will go on when I flip the switch
trust it so much
we'd stake our lives on it
and we frequently do
"at a practical level [science and its discoveries] form the unquestioned
horizons within which the vast majority of mankind
live
or would like to live."
if knowledge is empowering then there's reason to call the scientific descriptions
of things from which these applications flow "knowledge"
even those who say "faith moves mountains"
trust in bulldozers to build their mountain roads
Indeed, "it is simply not possible for the present population of the world
to be supported at all, let alone enjoy a comfortable standard of existence
with a reasonable life expectancy, without reliance on many of the discoveries
of modern science." (2)
The universality of science: "the discoveries of science cut across political
and religious divisions to a considerable extent"
Pro: science - in conspicuous contrast to religion - is not culture-bound
and ethnocentric: Enlightenment (modern) View
scientific conceptions and descriptions have universal validity across
cultures
science is a universal medium productive of objective -- or at least intersubjectively
& multiculturally agreeable -- understanding
religious modes of understanding, by way of contrast, are highly divisive
part of their function to establish cultural & tribal boundaries
to distinguish us (we believers) from them (heathens)
Con: science is an imperialistic hegemonic imposition of a Eurocentric
(and androcentric) world view on other cultures
with world views of their own
which are equally valid
different cultures have different subjectivities; there is no "objectivity"
science it one "narrative" among others -- myths, etc. -- which are
equally valid (?)
the tortoise story is a good a story about why the world isn't falling
as the geocentric story is
as the heliocentric
On a more theoretical level -- in defense of science -- O'Hear stresses
its cumulative or progressive nature
Pro: theories change, but scientific knowledge grows
examples
quantum mechanics explains most everything classical (Newtonian) mechanics
did . . . only better
Copernicus' heliocentric theory explains most everything Ptolemy's geocentric
theory did . . . only better
contrast religious shifts (from Mayan religion to Catholicism, say) or
changes of style in art or clothes
science advances toward "more and more true knowledge about the nature
of the world"
Con: this "progress" is illusory. Radical theoretical shifts in science
are not much different from religious conversions, after all. (Kuhn)
Growth of Knowledge
Prima facie case: all this is epistemic progress
measurements of physical quantities have become more precise
previously unknown particles and substances have been discovered
new effects have been discovered, produced, and applied
Contrast the arts to see there's something really distinctive here
in the arts -- or philosophy -- studying the old masters still much to
the point
Aristotle
philosophy very well worth studying
for scientific purposes his science, on the other hand, is not
Aristotle thought the sun revolved around the earth
nowadays every schoolchild knows better
Priestly thought that oxygen was dephlogisticated air (that's why things
burn so readily in pure oxygen!) -- now every schoolchild knows better.
phlogiston was supposed to have negative weight
which explains why the ashes + combustion byproducts (as careful measurement
discovered) weighed more than the thing burned.
O'Hear! O'Hear!: the difference
we are able to specify a clear target at which all theories aim
and we often have confidence that theory A has got closer to the target
than theory B
and that aim "might be characterized as discovering the truth about the
natural world"
and when we have theories which aim to describe the same bits of the natural
world we can often say that a later theory is better than an earlier
Kepler-Newton theory of planetary motion: heliocentric with elliptical
orbits
Copernican theory: heliocentric with circular orbits
Ptolemaic-Aristotelean: geocentric with circular orbits
Contra T. S. Eliot's remark that "in literature we know more than our predecessors
because what we know is their work"
the poetry of Dante and the plays of Sophocles. artistically speaking,
still live
"the theories of Aristotle and Copernicus are, from the scientific point
of view, dead; we have progressed beyond them and there is not need to
revive them except as historical curiosities" (6)
Objectivity and the External World
The basis of the science/are contrast
Artistic pursuits
being "about human endeavor and expression"
"always involve some coming to terms with our history and our past"
Scientific theories are
"dealing with a world independent of human history and human intervention"
truths it reveals "would still be true even if human beings had never existed"
Characteristics of scientific theories
"attempt to explain some natural phenomea by producing some general formula
or theory covering all the phenomena of that particular type"
: e.g., the flight of airplanes explained by laws of aerodynamics (which
also -- some of the same laws -- explains how your sailboat goes).
famous case: Newton's unification of terrestrial and celestial mechanics
Gallileo's laws of free fall and projectile motion
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
could both be explained by one set of laws + certain assumptions about
the facts (masses of the sun & planets)
laws of motion: (1) inertia (2) ? (3) action-reaction
law of universal gravitation
Scientific theories and explanations are potentiallypredictive:
Covering law model of scientific explanation
L1 . . . Ln {statements of applicable empirical laws}
C1 . . . C1 {description of initial conditions}
therefore E (the event to be explained)
Example: the discovery of Neptune from the explanation/prediction of irregularities
in the orbit of Uranus
this would be explicable/predictable if it was being affected by the gravitational
pull of an unknown planet of certain mass and location
the search for such planet resulted in the discovery that what the theory
predicted to be there was
successful predictions confirm laws
unsuccessful predictions disconfirm or (some would even say refute)
the laws used to make them
matter can neither be created nor destroyed: conservation of matter principle
disconfirmed by matter atomic reactions
predictivity as necessary but insufficient
every good scientific explanation must be potentially predictive (&
thus be testable)
some social scientific practioners & theorists deny this
saying that the intellectual aim of social sciences (or certain of them)
is interpretive understanding (according to one line of resistance)
but not every prediction is explanatory: even hardcore science boosters
grant this
e.g., the length of the shadow + the sun's angle of incidence + Pythagorus'
theorum predicts the height of the flagpole