Critique on...The Myths of Science

[Ophiolite]

Those ideas are all common in science textbooks at the primary level.

Could you clarify a couple of points please?

First, what do consider to be a primary level textbook? At what age range is it aimed? I would take it to mean textbooks targeting the 11-13 year range. Is that what you have in mind?

Secondly, are you saying that textbooks at this level describe a theory as being a rather uncertain idea? Something that is on the level of a speculation? If this is what you mean could you give an example of a couple textbooks that offer such a view?

As I noted earlier I have read a great many textbooks and have never seen these ideas promoted in them. But although I have read many textbooks, I have not read the majority of textbooks. I have seen a very limited number in the larger scheme of things. Perhaps you have seen a larger range. Or a different range.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've seen what 2Philo is discussing in middle school and highschool science textbooks. Esp. the supposed hierarchy of hypothesis, theory, and law.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I found an interesting review of high school chemistry textbooks gauging the content relating to the 'nature of science' (a phrase also in the critique's title). It gauges a number of aspects directly parallel to those in the critique, e.g. creativity, "myth of 'the scientific method'", theories vs laws, etc.

Although some texts are better and some are worse, almost all of them did a bad job on the "myth of 'the scientific method'".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I found an interesting review of high school chemistry textbooks gauging the content relating to the 'nature of science' (a phrase also in the critique's title). It gauges a number of aspects directly parallel to those in the critique, e.g. creativity, "myth of 'the scientific method'", theories vs laws, etc.

Although some texts are better and some are worse, almost all of them did a bad job on the "myth of 'the scientific method'".

I thought the snippet from the conclusion of the article you cited is interesting (p. 851), found in the paragraph that begins with "This study provides evidence that a fourth..."

 

[Ophiolite]

I've seen what 2Philo is discussing in middle school and highschool science textbooks. Esp. the supposed hierarchy of hypothesis, theory, and law.

Thank you for your reply, but it does not answer my question. I was specifically addressing the myth that a theory is "just a theory"; that theory is not especially sound; it conclusions seriously doubtful. Are you stating that this specific, warped understanding of theory is presented in middle school and high school textbooks?

 

[KCfromNC]

And this is why Science Educators in Science schools at universities are supposed to be teaching aspects of the Nature of Science ... so that the school doesn't churn out students who think that all this stuff is purely malleable in meaning. There is a difference between a Scientific Law and and Scientific Theory; the difference is in what each does or CAN DO for us.

For instance, we can say that evolution is a fact. And it is, as far as we can tell from our observations. But as you stated, science can't always tell us 'why' something in the world is the 'way it is.' But, Evolutionary Theory, for instance, attempts to pull together all the various disparate facts of evolution we have from various scientific disciplines to 'explain' why we see the evidence we do and bring some coherence to the overall picture.

And Netwon's law of motion does the same thing for the disparate facts we observed about the motion of masses. Same as Einstein's theory of general relativity. I mean sure, at the extremes of complexity you can make a distinction but I'm still not convinced there is as clear a difference as is being proposed. That's only natural given the hundreds of years of names people from across different cultures and languages have attached to their ideas.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And Netwon's law of motion does the same thing for the disparate facts we observed about the motion of masses. Same as Einstein's theory of general relativity. I mean sure, at the extremes of complexity you can make a distinction but I'm still not convinced there is as clear a difference as is being proposed. That's only natural given the hundreds of years of names people from across different cultures and languages have attached to their ideas.

Really? Is it that hard to discern the difference? Let's see what the following guy has to say. He doesn't seem to have much difficulty in understanding the difference, KC, although he does seem to get a bit philosophical about it:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anyone else have anything they want to add to our considerations of the article in the OP?

 

[Ophiolite]

Anyone else have anything they want to add to our considerations of the article in the OP?

I had forgotten I even contributed to the thread. I need to look at what myths I have already commented on then tackle a couple more.

 

[Michael]

Anyone else have anything they want to add to our considerations of the article in the OP?

Well, if you insist:

MYTH 10: EXPERIMENTS ARE THE PRINCIPAL ROUTE TO SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
Throughout their school science careers, students are encouraged to associate science with experimentation. Virtually all hands-on experiences that students have in science class are called experiments even if they would more accurately be labeled as technical procedures, explorations or activities. True experiments involve carefully orchestrated procedures accompanied by control and test groups. Usually experiments have as a primary goal the establishment of a cause and effect relationship. Of course, true experimentation is a useful tool in science, but is not the sole route to knowledge.
Many noteworthy scientists have used non-experimental techniques to advance knowledge. In fact, in a number of science disciplines, true experimentation is not possible because of the inability to control variables. Many fundamental discoveries in astronomy are based on extensive observations rather than experiments. Copernicus and Kepler changed our view of the solar system using observational evidence derived from lengthy and detailed observations frequently contributed by other scientists, but neither performed experiments.
Charles Darwin’s investigatory regime was frequently more similar to qualitative techniques used in the social sciences than the experimental techniques associated with the natural sciences. For his most revolutionary discoveries, Darwin recorded his extensive observations in notebooks annotated by speculations and thoughts about those observations. Although Darwin supported the inductive method proposed by Bacon, he was aware that observation without speculation or prior understanding was both ineffective and impossible. In fact he stated this view clearly by saying, “I could not help making hypotheses about everything I saw.” (Darwin, 1958). The techniques advanced by Darwin have been widely used by scientists such as Goodall and Fossey in their primate studies. Scientific knowledge is gained in a variety of ways including observation, analysis, speculation, library investigation and experimentation.

Actually, I'm going to argue that this isn't a "myth" to begin with. Experimentation *is* the the principal route to "scientific knowledge". Scientific "speculation" can occur with simple (uncontrolled) 'observation', but without real control mechanisms and real experimentation, the concept of "knowledge" related to cause/effect relationships becomes highly dubious and highly speculative.

The author talks about "discoveries" in astronomy that aren't necessarily "discoveries" to start with. Any actual "knowledge" that we have about gravity and the layout of our solar system have been gained by active experimentation, not just armchair observation. Gravity is not shy around the lab, and experimentation with gravity is commonplace in the 21st century.

The difference is easy to demonstrate too. Astronomers may "have faith" that "space expansion' is an actual 'cause' of photon redshift, but that concept is not "knowledge". On the other hand, moving objects *are known* (knowledge through experimentation) to cause photon redshift, as are several types of inelastic scattering. Likewise, astronomers may have a 'hypothesis' that exotic matter exists, but they have no "knowledge" that this belief is true. At best they have "evidence' which typically requires them to "assume" that their mass estimation techniques are correct to start with, but billions of dollars worth of 'experiment' to find exotic forms of matter have been a complete bust. They therefore have no "knowledge" of exotic matter as evidenced by all the failures in the lab.

Darwin may have originally relied upon observation while developing his beliefs/theories, but any real 'knowledge' that we have about biology comes from active experimentation, not his original observations.

I would argue that experimentation is far more important than most scientists are willing to admit, and active experimentation *is* the principal route to actual "scientific knowledge" as opposed to "scientific speculation". It's not actually possible to hold 'knowledge' of the cause of an observation without active experimentation. We can have a "hypothesis" about the cause from observation, but that's not the same thing as having "knowledge' of the cause.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, I'm going to argue that this isn't a "myth" to begin with. Experimentation *is* the the principal route to "scientific knowledge". Scientific "speculation" can occur with simple (uncontrolled) 'observation', but without real control mechanisms and real experimentation, the concept of "knowledge" related to cause/effect relationships becomes highly dubious and highly speculative.

If this is the case, then what was it exactly that was happening in the mid to late 1800s when Darwin came on the scene with Huxley's help. Evolution was claimed to “truth” by Darwin, but he said it is provisional. So, is scientific knowledge and/or truth “provisional”? Or do we really “know” some truth about our world. And if we can admit we don't really know how something happens, or that there is definitely room to find out more about some phenomenon about our world, then how is it we say we “know”? Furthermore, if indeed we know something about the world, but we recognize that we came to that knowledge through much more than just experemental trial and error, then isn't speculation a part of the scientific enterprise which is wrapped up into the 'why' we think what we do about the world?

The author talks about "discoveries" in astronomy that aren't necessarily "discoveries" to start with. Any actual "knowledge" that we have about gravity and the layout of our solar system have been gained by active experimentation, not just armchair observation. Gravity is not shy around the lab, and experimentation with gravity is commonplace in the 21st century.

So, you wouldn't specify the developments in the thinking of Copernicus or Kepler constitute forms of “discovery”? What is discovery, then? And what was it that Copernicus or Kepler actually did if “discovery” isn't an applicable term to what they concluded in astronomy at those points in time?

The difference is easy to demonstrate too. Astronomers may "have faith" that "space expansion' is an actual 'cause' of photon redshift, but that concept is not "knowledge". On the other hand, moving objects *are known* (knowledge through experimentation) to cause photon redshift, as are several types of inelastic scattering. Likewise, astronomers may have a 'hypothesis' that exotic matter exists, but they have no "knowledge" that this belief is true. At best they have "evidence' which typically requires them to "assume" that their mass estimation techniques are correct to start with, but billions of dollars worth of 'experiment' to find exotic forms of matter have been a complete bust. They therefore have no "knowledge" of exotic matter as evidenced by all the failures in the lab.

Darwin may have originally relied upon observation while developing his beliefs/theories, but any real 'knowledge' that we have about biology comes from active experimentation, not his original observations.

Well, that is obvious, but am I to gather that you wouldn't say that Darwin, along with his buddy Huxley and other scientists, had strong confidence in Darwin's Theory as he had articulated at that time? Do you think Darwin didn't think it was a form of “truth” or that what he observed on the Galapagos Islands didn't count as knowledge?

I would argue that experimentation is far more important than most scientists are willing to admit, and active experimentation *is* the principal route to actual "scientific knowledge" as opposed to "scientific speculation". It's not actually possible to hold 'knowledge' of the cause of an observation without active experimentation. We can have a "hypothesis" about the cause from observation, but that's not the same thing as having "knowledge' of the cause.

It seems that something here in the meaning of “scientific knowledge” is being obfuscated: are we clear as to what is defined in science as Fact, Hypothesis, Theory and/or Law?

Maybe see the video above in post #27 and see if you agree or disagree with the commentators presentation:

Critique on...The Myths of Science

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Michael]

If this is the case, then what was it exactly that was happening in the mid to late 1800s when Darwin came on the scene with Huxley's help. Evolution was claimed to “truth” by Darwin, but he said it is provisional. So, is scientific knowledge and/or truth “provisional”? Or do we really “know” some truth about our world.

What did we really "know" with certainty until we discovered DNA and it's effect on organisms? We have a good working 'theory' and some observational supporting evidence of course, but I wouldn't necessarily call it 'knowledge' of biology, certainly not on the order of information that we now have via active experimentation. We know for instance that HOX genes can and do cause macroevolutionary changes, but that wasn't "known" by Darwin.

And if we can admit we don't really know how something happens, or that there is definitely room to find out more about some phenomenon about our world, then how is it we say we “know”?

IMO "knowledge" of cause/effect relationships is real "knowledge". Assumptions about the cause aren't actual "knowledge", although it could be considered a good theory to explain a specific observation.

Furthermore, if indeed we know something about the world, but we recognize that we came to that knowledge through much more than just experemental trial and error, then isn't speculation a part of the scientific enterprise which is wrapped up into the 'why' we think what we do about the world?

In the case of evolutionary theory, sure, we started with a 'theory' that potentially explained some important aspects about the diversity of life on Earth, and various fossil records. Without 'knowledge" of the DNA aspects however, it was just a good "theory".

So, you wouldn't specify the developments in the thinking of Copernicus or Kepler constitute forms of “discovery”?

"Discovery"? Sure. They 'discovered' a good potential way to explain how and why the Earth and the sun stayed in orbit, and the concept of gravity has always been "testable" in controlled experimentation, but actual 'knowledge' is a bit trickier. Experimentation *verified* the 'theory', at which point I'd call it "knowledge".

What is discovery, then? And what was it that Copernicus or Kepler actually did if “discovery” isn't an applicable term to what they concluded in astronomy at those points in time?

I'm comfortable with the term 'discovery', but knowledge is a horse of a different color. The knowledge to verify the discovery came from active experimentation, not just "uncontrolled observation". The observations certainly lead to "insights" and good ideas/theories, but not actual 'knowledge' IMO. Cause/effect 'knowledge' requires a verification of the idea.

Dark matter is a great example of what you might claim is a 'discovery', but the lab results suggest that we know little or nothing about it, assuming it even actually exists at all. PandaX-II and Xenon-1T experiments pretty much destroyed any concept of 'knowledge' associated with the term "dark matter", and many observations suggest that it might be ordinary matter, not exotic matter. The term "missing mass" would have actually been a better "discovery" claim.

Well, that is obvious, but am I to gather that you wouldn't say that Darwin and Huxley, and other scientists, had strong confidence in Darwin's Theory of Evolution as he had articulated? Darwin didn't think it was a form of “truth” or that what he observed on the Galapogos Islands didn't count as knowledge?

He may have had a great idea that did tend to explain the diversity of life and which was consistent with the data he had at the time, but without the "knowledge" of DNA, and it's effect on organisms, what did he really 'know'? There is really no such thing as "truth" or "proof" in science. It's always considered provisional to some degree, but I'd definitely say that we have "knowledge' of DNA, and knowledge about biology in 2017 that has translated into useful consumer products, like antibiotics.

It seems that something here in the meaning of “scientific knowledge” is being obfuscated: are we clear as to what are defined in science as Facts, Hypotheses, Theories and/or Laws?

The terms "dark energy" and "dark matter" have no real "knowledge" associated with them. They are simply placeholder terms for human ignorance. If we had 'knowledge' of these things, astronomers could name a source of dark energy, and they wouldn't have had so many failures at LHC, LUX, PandaX, Xenon-1T, etc. There's no "knowledge' associated with such terms. There is one specific cosmology theory that requires them, but other cosmology theories do not.

Maybe see the video above in post #27 and see if you agree or disagree with the commentators presentation:

Critique on...The Myths of Science

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I'll check it out and comment after I've seen the video.

 

[Michael]

I like that video. I'd say he does a good job describing the difference between a hypothesis (untested idea) and a theory (a tested concept). Based on that video, I'd say that Darwin came up with a nice "hypothesis" about evolution, but only once we found DNA could you call it an actual theory. We found a *physical mechanism* that might explain his hypothesis when we found DNA. That was actual "knowledge" at that point.

Compare and contrast that to the 'hypothesis' of exotic forms of "dark matter". We tried to "test" that concept in various labs, but guess what happened? The "hypothesis" of exotic failed every conceivable test to date. Can you really call that a "theory" if it can't pass a real test in real experiments?

While the term "dark energy" might be a useful 'hypothesis" to explain some aspects of SN1A observations, we have no 'knowledge" associated with that term anymore than his example of the "hypothesis" that the cat purrs due to gears inside the cat. It's a nice "hypothesis' perhaps, but since no human being can name so much as a single source of "dark energy", you can't really call it a "theory" or a form of 'knowledge'. It's a concept that may be valid, or may not be valid, depending on how one subjectively interprets the SN1A events. Some "tired light" hypotheses attempt to explain that observation in a completely different way from dark energy. Which hypothesis is correct?

Compare and contrast that with the "knowledge" we have about EM fields today. We know how to produce them, where they come from, and the "theory" works in the lab too. That's real useful "knowledge" that shows up in my cell phone.

Even scientists butcher and kludge the meaning of various terms:

NASA - NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

There is no such thing as "proof" of any theory/hypothesis, just "evidence" which may or may not support the concept. These terms confuse everyone, even the professionals.

Dark-matter hunt fails to find the elusive particles

It might be acceptable for NASA to have claimed to find "evidence" of "missing mass", but there is no "proof of dark matter". There's certainly no *knowledge* associated with that term, and it fails all sorts of different "tests" in the lab.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I like that video. I'd say he does a good job describing the difference between a hypothesis (untested idea) and a theory (a tested concept). Based on that video, I'd say that Darwin came up with a nice "hypothesis" about evolution, but only once we found DNA could you call it an actual theory. We found a *physical mechanism* that might explain his hypothesis when we found DNA. That was actual "knowledge" at that point.

Compare and contrast that to the 'hypothesis' of exotic forms of "dark matter". We tried to "test" that concept in various labs, but guess what happened? The "hypothesis" of exotic failed every conceivable test to date. Can you really call that a "theory" if it can't pass a real test in real experiments?

Well, I think the guy in the video would specify that forming and testing a Hypothesis is a separate part of science from that of forming an overall Theory which brings together the various Facts in a 'covering' Explanation. (Maybe that's what you meant to say, but here it seems you've equivocated hypothesis with theory.) [Feel free to correct me as you see fit to do. ]

While the term "dark energy" might be a useful 'hypothesis" to explain some aspects of SN1A observations, we have no 'knowledge" associated with that term anymore than his example of the "hypothesis" that the cat purrs due to gears inside the cat. It's a nice "hypothesis' perhaps, but since no human being can name so much as a single source of "dark energy", you can't really call it a "theory" or a form of 'knowledge'. It's a concept that may be valid, or may not be valid, depending on how one subjectively interprets the SN1A events. Some "tired light" hypotheses attempt to explain that observation in a completely different way from dark energy. Which hypothesis is correct?

Compare and contrast that with the "knowledge" we have about EM fields today. We know how to produce them, where they come from, and the "theory" works in the lab too. That's real useful "knowledge" that shows up in my cell phone.

Even scientists butcher and kludge the meaning of various terms:

NASA - NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

There is no such thing as "proof" of any theory/hypothesis, just "evidence" which may or may not support the concept. These terms confuse everyone, even the professionals.

Dark-matter hunt fails to find the elusive particles

It might be acceptable for NASA to have claimed to find "evidence" of "missing mass", but there is no "proof of dark matter". There's certainly no *knowledge* associated with that term, and it fails all sorts of different "tests" in the lab.

So, you would agree then with the OP article that scientists sometimes get ahead of themselves in their eagerness to affirm some possible scientifically studied phenomenon as a fact, and they do this by butchering and kluding at times? And 'evidence' is open to our interpretation, in which case, even if we get to a point where we have 'verified' some phenomenon, we may have to consider whether or not it is still open to interpretation?

 

[Michael]

Well, I think the guy in the video would specify that forming and testing a Hypothesis is a separate part of science from that of forming an overall Theory which brings together the various Facts in a 'covering' Explanation. (Maybe that's what you meant to say, but here it seems you've equivocated hypothesis with theory.) [Feel free to correct me as you see fit to do. ]

There really isn't a huge difference between the use of the terms "hypothesis", "theory" and "model" in astronomy at least. They're all intermixed. "M-theory" for instance is more like an untestable hypothesis at best. Several different "hypothetical" entities are included in the big bang (LCDM) "model". The terms are used interchangeably in most instances. I would say the video correctly differentiates between the terms hypothesis and theory, and the difference is typically "knowledge" gained from real lab results.

So, you would agree then with the OP article that scientists sometimes get ahead of themselves in their eagerness to affirm some possible scientifically studied phenomenon as a fact, and they do this by butchering and kluding at times?

I think they get overly eager, and excited like all human beings. There is no such thing as "proof" in physics, just evidence. That didn't stop them from claiming to "prove" the existence of dark matter when in fact they only had evidence that their bayonic mass estimates were *way* off. We now know why too. They grossly underestimated the number of stars in those galaxies.

And 'evidence' is open to our interpretation, in which case, even if we get to a point where we have 'verified' some phenomenon, we may have to consider whether or not it is still open to interpretation?

The interpretation aspect is important. We could interpret those bullet cluster findings in many different ways. One person might "interpret" that data to support exotic matter. Another individuals might interpret that data to suggest that their baryonic mass estimates were way off. There is no way to know which "interpretation" is correct without real "knowledge'. If we had actual laboratory knowledge of exotic, invisible forms of matter, that would lend support to one interpretation over the other. We don't have such knowledge, but we do now have 'evidence' that their baryonic mass estimates were way off.

The difference between knowledge and ideas is that ideas may or may not pan out in the lab. Look at the dark matter fiasco. It's been "tested" to the tune of *billions* of dollars now, and it's managed to fail every test. Now how could you call that a "theory", or a form of "knowledge'? It might still be a valid hypothesis, just like the cat purring caused by gears inside the cat might be a valid "hypothesis", but it's certainly not form of "knowledge", or well tested "theory".