Today I thought instead of a political rant, I'd do a more intellectual exercise. I studied Philosophy of Science as an undergraduate. In fact, I took enough classes to qualify for a minor, but didn't realize there was a minor offered until after I graduated. I was reading through one of my old texts, when I came across this question.
The basis of all science, as any high school graduate knows, is the scientific method. Form a hypothesis, obtain data, modify your hypothesis to match the data. This is counter to the pseudoscientific method: form a hypothesis, obtain data, modify the data to match your original hypothesis. That's an oversimplification, but the main difference between science and pseudoscience is falsifiability. It may sound paradoxical, but the ability to be wrong is what makes science so powerful. I've already talked about the pseudoscientific claims of creationism and intelligent design. Creationists can interpret any set of data and observations to match their hypothesis. Their hypothesis can't be falsified. For example, the fossil record runs counter to creationist claims that the Earth was created in seven days. Rather than accepting the disproof of their hypothesis, creationists can claim that the fossils were put there by God to test our faith. Modifying the data, not the hypothesis.
The problem with this definition of pseudoscience is that real scientists do this all the time. In the 19th century, it was discovered that the orbit of Uranus did not follow Newton's theory of gravity. According to the scientific method, Newton's theory should have been discarded. Instead, two scientists, Adams and Leverrier, changed the data to match the hypothesis. They concluded that Newtonian physics is a true hypothesis, but an undiscovered planet was messing with the orbit of Uranus. Lo and behold, they discovered Neptune. The question I have for you is this: were Adams and Leverrier esteemed scientists who discovered a new planet, or pseudoscientists who irrationally clung to a bad hypothesis? I'll post my interpretation in the next couple days.
References:
1. Okasha, Samir. The Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press: 2002. 13-17
03 May 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I haven't done any sort of research as of now into this case, this is just impressions after reading what you said in the post.
But it sounds like their find was entirely coincidental, and nothing more. The fact that they happened to find a new planet in the process doesn't change their intentions. They intended to find a new planet based on a false hypothesis, and happened to find one.
Columbus is given credit with discovering America, despite the fact that he went to his grave swearing he'd sailed to India. We still give him credit, but it doesn't change the fact that he was kind of a bumbling fool.
Basically, I'd say accomplishments shouldn't be confused with intentions.
I see the problem here as not falsifying data. Rather that finding one planet with a strange orbit wasn't enough to throw out Newtonian physics. That COULD have been the case, but it made a lot more sense to suggest that there was some other effect going on. Of course they could have been wrong, and in time Newtonian physics could have been thrown out, but since it worked so well in all other areas, it would have been a BIGGER leap for them to suddenly discard Newtonian physics. Of course, down the line Einstein did just that, but he has a lot better evidence and improved scientific data and instrumentation. Plus, planets are large enough to follow Newtonian physics pretty well.
Post a Comment