Science (not only refers to the study of physical and natural world) is a systematized body of knowledge about a particular subject. It is performed methodically. All sciences have methods. Method is the procedure one uses in achieving something. In approaching science, one has to pass to a procedure or a process that will lead him/r to achieve a result. Whatever the result of one’s action is, is just the consequence of the method or process s/he used. That is why method is important in science.
Because Aristotle saw the importance of method in science, he proposed to us what he called “Scientific Method.” By the word itself, for sure we can understand what it means. Even though it has been a long time since he proposed it, his scientific method still makes sense until now. In fact it caused a lot of developments in science. Example if we talk about inventions, the inventor would deal first with methods before s/he can invent something. Without method, no process, no inventions. After him, Francis Bacon proposed that in order for us to be scientific, we must free ourselves from our “idols.” He called it “the theory of Idols”. Even though we will use scientific method but still we cannot overcome our biases, we can never achieve a good hypothesis. Our biases limit us. We must free ourselves from our idols in order to achieve a good hypothesis (a scientific guess not a guess that we force to be scientific.) After Bacon, Karl Popper proposed that we should prepare ourselves from any changes for time will come that other theories will be better than ours. We have nothing to do with it. What we can do is just to accept that others are better and greater than us. He called it “falsification.” As what I can see, this is the movement of science since before. It improves and improves. It will never stop improving. After Popper, Imre Lakatus would believe in the fact that because science is all about the methodologies, what we consider theories are not theories but just “slightly different theories.” These theories have their “hardcores” which refers not only in their commonalities, but in their points. He also proposed what he called “research programs” that will be the protection of their hardcores. For Lakatus, if we only look at the downside of things, we fail to appreciate their upsides. There is always better that what is ours but it doesn’t mean we should change from one thing to the other, from one theory to the other. We change if it cannot answer our needs. Even though there is falsification, we should consider that they have certain truths in them. We should appreciate them all for time will come that we will need them again. After Lakatus, Thomas Kuhn proposed about “paradigm shifting.” We can understand other’s point if we look at them the way they would look at things, the way they would look at reality. It is not about one is better than the other. They are just different, they are just unique. To make things clear, it is not about giving up the way you would look at things and follow the other. Our way of looking at things can be merge with the other. We only need to choose the upsides of both sides.
Science develops as time goes on. The movement of the philosophy of science is from scientific method to overcoming one’s biases to falsification to research programs in protecting the hardcore and to paradigm shifting. If we would get the upsides of these theories and apply them in life, for sure we can look at things in a wider perspective. After knowing those theories, the last philosopher of science we have discussed is against the first theory we have encountered in this subject which is the scientific method. He is Paul Feyerabend and he is against methodologies. He would believe that a scientist is not a scientist if s/he uses methods. For him, methods will just limit us in achieving greater things, something that is beyond. What he meant is that, a true scientist goes beyond the box. For example, Joseph creates a new gadget. After one year, Keith creates the same gadget but it is more advanced and it is the falsified one. In this situation, we can see that Joseph was original in creating that gadget because his thinks outside the box. Keith did not think outside the box because the gadget he created was first created by Joseph. Joseph created that gadget to present something new. Keith’s creation is more of “beautifying” and adding something new to Joseph’s creation. The falsified one is of course more interesting in the eyes of the people and many will buy it. Feyerabend does not really mean not to use methods. For him, we should not use methods that are already objective. The method that we should use is something that is new. It is about going outside and beyond the box. In that way, we can present something new and unique to people which are original from us. That is why he is against in method and falsification. If we think outside the box always, we can be the best that we can be for we do not only limit ourselves from what is original from others but we create something that is unique. In that way, science continues to improve and present new data and information to the people.
In sciences and any researches, experiments are really important. Most scientists discover something new through accidents and they repeat it again and again until they can perfect it. Those accidents led them to a new discovery. Those discoveries were discovered because of the openness of the people behind them to accidents that in the end will give them a unique discovery at all. Now, we see the point of Paul Feyerabend. As a conclusion, we should go beyond the box for us to be the best that we can be. We can be the best that we can be only if we will not limit ourselves to what the present world is giving us. If we get the upsides of all the theories of the philosophers of science we have discussed in the class, we will not only look at the reality with a wider perspective, but also we can be the best that we can be!
Because Aristotle saw the importance of method in science, he proposed to us what he called “Scientific Method.” By the word itself, for sure we can understand what it means. Even though it has been a long time since he proposed it, his scientific method still makes sense until now. In fact it caused a lot of developments in science. Example if we talk about inventions, the inventor would deal first with methods before s/he can invent something. Without method, no process, no inventions. After him, Francis Bacon proposed that in order for us to be scientific, we must free ourselves from our “idols.” He called it “the theory of Idols”. Even though we will use scientific method but still we cannot overcome our biases, we can never achieve a good hypothesis. Our biases limit us. We must free ourselves from our idols in order to achieve a good hypothesis (a scientific guess not a guess that we force to be scientific.) After Bacon, Karl Popper proposed that we should prepare ourselves from any changes for time will come that other theories will be better than ours. We have nothing to do with it. What we can do is just to accept that others are better and greater than us. He called it “falsification.” As what I can see, this is the movement of science since before. It improves and improves. It will never stop improving. After Popper, Imre Lakatus would believe in the fact that because science is all about the methodologies, what we consider theories are not theories but just “slightly different theories.” These theories have their “hardcores” which refers not only in their commonalities, but in their points. He also proposed what he called “research programs” that will be the protection of their hardcores. For Lakatus, if we only look at the downside of things, we fail to appreciate their upsides. There is always better that what is ours but it doesn’t mean we should change from one thing to the other, from one theory to the other. We change if it cannot answer our needs. Even though there is falsification, we should consider that they have certain truths in them. We should appreciate them all for time will come that we will need them again. After Lakatus, Thomas Kuhn proposed about “paradigm shifting.” We can understand other’s point if we look at them the way they would look at things, the way they would look at reality. It is not about one is better than the other. They are just different, they are just unique. To make things clear, it is not about giving up the way you would look at things and follow the other. Our way of looking at things can be merge with the other. We only need to choose the upsides of both sides.
Science develops as time goes on. The movement of the philosophy of science is from scientific method to overcoming one’s biases to falsification to research programs in protecting the hardcore and to paradigm shifting. If we would get the upsides of these theories and apply them in life, for sure we can look at things in a wider perspective. After knowing those theories, the last philosopher of science we have discussed is against the first theory we have encountered in this subject which is the scientific method. He is Paul Feyerabend and he is against methodologies. He would believe that a scientist is not a scientist if s/he uses methods. For him, methods will just limit us in achieving greater things, something that is beyond. What he meant is that, a true scientist goes beyond the box. For example, Joseph creates a new gadget. After one year, Keith creates the same gadget but it is more advanced and it is the falsified one. In this situation, we can see that Joseph was original in creating that gadget because his thinks outside the box. Keith did not think outside the box because the gadget he created was first created by Joseph. Joseph created that gadget to present something new. Keith’s creation is more of “beautifying” and adding something new to Joseph’s creation. The falsified one is of course more interesting in the eyes of the people and many will buy it. Feyerabend does not really mean not to use methods. For him, we should not use methods that are already objective. The method that we should use is something that is new. It is about going outside and beyond the box. In that way, we can present something new and unique to people which are original from us. That is why he is against in method and falsification. If we think outside the box always, we can be the best that we can be for we do not only limit ourselves from what is original from others but we create something that is unique. In that way, science continues to improve and present new data and information to the people.
In sciences and any researches, experiments are really important. Most scientists discover something new through accidents and they repeat it again and again until they can perfect it. Those accidents led them to a new discovery. Those discoveries were discovered because of the openness of the people behind them to accidents that in the end will give them a unique discovery at all. Now, we see the point of Paul Feyerabend. As a conclusion, we should go beyond the box for us to be the best that we can be. We can be the best that we can be only if we will not limit ourselves to what the present world is giving us. If we get the upsides of all the theories of the philosophers of science we have discussed in the class, we will not only look at the reality with a wider perspective, but also we can be the best that we can be!
RSS Feed