Does Science Aim at the Truth - Essay Example

Does Science Aim at the Truth Science has been described as "an organized search for knowledge" (Appiah, 1999, p. 87). Based on this, it can be said that science aims at gaining knowledge. However, it is not as clear whether or not science is aiming at uncovering the truth. In fact, trying to determine what the purpose of science raises some major philosophical questions. One has to ask whether searching for knowledge is the same as searching for truth. One has to ask what truth is and how people seek it. Finally, one has to look at the nature of science, consider the scientific approach, and ask whether it is a search for knowledge as well as a search for truth. An attempt to answer the question will now be made by considering each of these areas. The first question that needs to be asked is what truth is and how it relates to knowledge. This question has been considered in detail by Plato. In his dialogue Theaetutus, Plato asks the question 'what is knowledge' and then attempts to determine what criteria can be used to decide whether someone has knowledge. Plato makes an important distinction between knowledge and belief, where knowledge is something that can be known to be true. For Plato, a person does not have knowledge if what they think they know is incorrect. The basis to determine if something is correct or incorrect cannot come from within the mind, but must come from some external source. For example, consider the case of people who once believed that the world was round. According to Plato's focus, this was a belief and was not knowledge because it was not able to be verified. This leads to Plato's conclusion that there are three criteria that define something as knowledge: you must believe it; it must be true; and you must be justified in believing it (Plato, 1948, p. 97). This philosophy of Plato's shows that knowledge and truth and treated the same, since something is only considered as knowledge if it is true. This suggests that a search for knowledge is also a search for truth. Plato also makes this point again where he described how knowledge is acquired. He says that knowledge is created when the human mind recognizes truths (Plato, 1948, p. 97). This also suggests that a search for knowledge is also a search for truth. Other philosophers have also extended Plato's ideas on knowledge, especially by focusing on how beliefs can be separated from truths. In Discourse, Descartes (1985, p. 131) says that something can only be known if you believe it, if it is truth, and if you have evidence supporting the belief. This is similar to Plato's approach. The only difference is that Descartes takes a slightly more practical approach and consider how people can justify their belief in something. The answer is that people justify their belief via evidence. If they have evidence that supports their belief, they have a reason to say that their belief is true. This suggests that the scientific approach is based on finding the truth, since it also uses evidence to support beliefs. Another philosopher that provides information on the topic is Lonergan. The focus of Lonergan's philosophy is how ideas are created and used to create knowledge. In Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (1957, p. 32) Lonergan argues that individuals gain knowledge by questioning the data that is attained from experience. According to Lonergan, facts and knowledge are based in reality. However, people do not automatically have an understanding of facts and knowledge. Instead, people have to gain an understanding by questioning and considering their experience. In some cases, people will make assumptions about the world based on experience. They will then test these assumptions to see if they are correct. In proposing this view, Lonergan is not talking about a scientific approach, but is simply talking about how people learn about the world and acquire knowledge. The interesting thing is that his approach mirrors the scientific method. The scientific method involves developing a theory or hypothesis, generally based on some observation or idea. The theory or hypothesis is then tested with the intention of gaining evidence to support the theory or gaining evidence that shows it to be untrue. This technique means that observations are made relative to what the scientist wants to determine. The important point is that what is observed is given meaning via interpretation. This was a key belief in Lonergan's theory, where he argued that there can never be a fact without interpretation. The interpretation is what gives something status as a fact. In addition, whether something is a fact cannot be determined by a human mind, but can only be recognized by a human mind. In short, it is not made a fact because we recognize it, but we recognize it because it is a fact. In scientific terms, determining facts is akin to determining truth. If Lonergan's theory is correct in describing how individuals arrive at knowledge and truth, it provides an important insight into the scientific approach. It suggests that the scientific approach is simply a structured means of arriving at the truth, based on the normal human processes of idea creation, hypothesis testing, and experience. This suggests that science is aimed at uncovering the truth. It is now important to take a closer look at how the scientific approach works. Appiah (1999, p. 88) notes that the scientific approach is typically based on understanding things that cannot be physically observed. In short, something that is obvious to everyone does not require the scientific approach because it can be understood by simple observation. The scientific approach then becomes a means of going beyond and obvious and delving into the reasons why things happen. For example, one could drop an object and note that it falls to the ground. Observing this and accepting that dropped objects fall to the ground is not scientific because the conclusion is based on direct observation. A scientific approach looks beyond this and asks why the object falls to the ground. This is then followed by the development of a hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis would be that there is a force known as gravity that causes dropped objects to fall to the earth. Of course, this force cannot actually be observed. Instead, the effect of this force can only be observed. This is why scientific experiments are designed with observation of events used to develop understanding and gain knowledge. Relating this back to the ideas of Plato, Descartes, and Lonergan, it can be seen that the scientific process is one that matches with what the philosophers said about how truth is gained. Plato said that for something to be truth or knowledge, you must be justified in believing it. The scientific approach where ideas are tested with observations is what provides the justification. This idea was also described by Descartes, where the scientific method can be seen as a means of gaining the proof necessary to determine truth and knowledge. Lonergan argued that individuals determine the facts by observation, with the scientific method a structured way for this process to occur. In this way, the scientific method does aim at gaining both truth and knowledge. However, it must also be noted that what science achieves in theory and what it aims to achieve are not necessarily the same. Chalmers (1999, p. 22) notes that it is assumed that science operates on the basis of observing facts, but also shows that this process is not as certain and secure in practice as people usually assume. One reason for the discrepancy is based on the idea that observation is theory-laden. This means that observation takes place in the context of whatever theory relates to what is being observed. This means that people take into account other assumptions that go beyond what is being observed. Another criticism is made by Karl Popper, who argues in The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959) that science should not be based on verifying that something is true, but should be based on verifying that something is not false. This is part of the scientific process, where scientific theories are typically considered valid until such time as a case is seen that shows that the theory is not true. In its own way, this is a process that arrives at the truth, though by eliminating all that is not true, rather than by proving what is true. This shows that even though science may not always arrive at the truth, it can still be considered as getting closing to determining the truth. One challenge to science as truth is based on the recognition that science is always changing. Once, people thought that the world was flat. Now, scientists have shown that the world is round. Once, atoms were thought to be solid objects. Then, atoms were thought to be masses of protons and neutrons with electrons circling around them. Now, atoms are also understood in terms of energy and wave diagrams. How can science be considered as aiming at the truth if what is accepted as the truth keeps changing One way that this can be understood is by distinguishing between a process that aims at the truth and a process that reaches the truth. Distinguish between these two processes means that just because science does not always reach the truth does not mean that it is not aiming to uncover the truth. At the same time, it must be recognized that the truth is not something that is easily reached. This can be further understood by considering how science develops over time. Kuhn describes this process in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1996, p. 12) saying that firstly a new idea emerges, with literature than growing on the subject. Eventually, the idea becomes accepted and is the dominant idea. However, a new idea then emerges and takes over the old. Kuhn also considers this a process where one idea partially builds on another as previous ideas become incorporated into the new ones. This means that even if a current idea is not representative of the truth, it may still represent a part of the truth. In this way, the scientific approach can be seen as aiming at the truth, even if it has not yet reached it. It is now time to return to the question at the centre of the debate: does science aim at truth Firstly, it has been seen that a search for knowledge is also a search for truth. By considering the ideas of Plato, Descartes, and Lonergan, it has been shown that knowledge and truth are considered the same. In addition, it has been seen that knowledge or truth is justified belief. This provides insight on how truth is sought, with it shown that truth comes from experience. This involves a process of developing ideas or hypotheses and then testing them by experience. By considering the scientific method, it has been seen that it is a structured method of developing and testing ideas. Science is a process that aims at gaining proof to justify beliefs or gaining proof to show that a theory is incorrect. Finally, it must be noted that science is not without fault. The scientific method is an approach to finding truth, but this does not mean that it succeeds every time. Other issues interfere and create flaws in science. This means that even though science is considered to be a method based on reason and truth, it is by no means a flawless method. For this reason, incorrect theories are proven to be right, accepted, and later overturned. In the end though, this does not mean that science does not aim at truth. Instead, it is fair to say that science always aims at uncovering the truth, even if it is not always successful in achieving this aim. References Appiah, A. (1999). Necessary questions: An introduction to philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Chalmers, A. (1978). What is this thing called science New York: Open University Press. Descartes, R. (1985). The philosophical writings of Descartes. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lonergan, B. (1957). Insight: A study of human understanding. London: University of Toronto Press. Plato. (1948). Theaetetus. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. New York: Liberal Arts Press. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books. Read More