Graham Bradley

Lecture 2
Is science rational and progressive?
Realism and instrumentalism
Inference to the best explanation
Criteria for theory choice
Logical positivists
Thomas Kuhn and

revolutions in science
Constructivism
Examples: plate tectonics and geomorphology
A scientific realist says...
A 1950s education in Freud, Marx, and
modernism is not a sufficient qualification
for a thinking person. Indeed, the traditional intellectuals
are, in a sense, increasingly reactionary, and quite often
proudly (and perversely) ignorant of many of the truly
significant intellectual accomplishments of our time.
Their culture, which dismisses science, is often non-
empirical. It uses its own jargon and washes its own
laundry. It is chiefly characterized by comment on
comments, the swelling spiral of commentary eventually
reaching the point where the real world gets lost.
John Brockman (science publisher www.edge.org)
 Scientific Realism
versus
Instrumentalism
Scientific realism the aim of science is to provide
true theories of the world
All theories are attempted descriptions of reality

Instrumentalism (anti-realism) the aim of science is

to provide predictive theories only
Not global anti-realism i.e. poststructuralism (language trap)
Science provides true descriptions of the observable universe
but has no knowledge of unobservable universe
Scientific theories are instruments to predict observations
Do scientific theories represent reality?

1. How do you know our current theories are true

if past theories were found to be false?
Some theories appear more robust depending on the
quantity and quality of observational evidence
2. How do you know which theories are true if
other theories are consistent with observations?
Science requires additional criteria to make an
inference to the best explanation
 Inference to the Best
Explanation
A type of non-deductive inference
Example:
On Christmas morning presents had been left by the tree
and the mince pies and sherry were gone!
Late on Christmas Eve footsteps were heard on the staircase
Who delivered the presents and ate the goodies?
Although we cannot be sure it wasnt Santa Clause,
from an early age we learn to infer the best
explanation based on personal criteria and experience
 intelligent design
natural
selection

What are the criteria for

choosing explanations?
Accuracy, scope, consistency, fruitfulness, simplicity etc.
E.g. Evolution by natural selection
explains similarities by descent from a common ancestor
replication & mutation & competition adaptation
Scientists agree that natural selections simplicity and
explanatory power (parsimony) are evidence of its truth
How do you know that reality is simple and not complex?
 The Logical Positivists
(1920s to 1960s)

Impressed by objectivity of science and verification

Context of discovery historical, emotional, subjective
Context of justification testing, evidence, objective

e.g. Kekule and the structure of benzene

They thought philosophy of science

should address justification of theory

They were not interested in history
Thomas Kuhn (1922 - 1996)
Is sociology of science important?
An historian of science who

thought that ignoring history

gives a nave picture of the scientific enterprise
Interested in scientific revolutions when
scientific ideas are replaced by radically new ones
e.g. Einsteinian revolution in physics, Darwinism
in biology, plate tectonics in geology
Reference: Kuhn, T. S., 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Paradigms
Shared assumptions, beliefs and values that unite
the community and allow normal science to take
place
Two components:
A set of fundamental theoretical

assumptions accepted by the scientific

community
A set of exemplars classic problems

solved by these theoretical assumptions

Normal Science
A paradigm defines normal science for a period
sets the standards for relevant research
specifies the objectives of relevant research
coordinates research and initiates students into the
tradition
Scientists work within a paradigm

to solve minor puzzles

When anomalies are few they

are ignored
Revolutionary Science

As anomalies accumulate a crisis develops

Confidence in the old paradigm breaks down
Fundamental scientific ideas are up for grabs
Paradigm shift a new paradigm is established
Example 1: Tectonic shifts in paradigm?

19th century: Static Continents

Observations: uplifted strata, geological folds
and faults
E.g. James Dana Manual of Geology (1863)
Explanations (no unifying theory):
undermining due to volcanic eruptions
sudden formation of volcanic vapours
weight of accumulated formations
movement of the globes interior fluids
temperature related expansion
and contraction
 Earlier 20th century growing unease
Observations:
matching coastlines
continuity of Permo-
Carboniferous glacial sediments
similar fossils between continents

Explanation: continental drift

(Alfred Wegener, 1912)
Not generally supported due
to lack of evidence for a suitable
mechanism
 Later 20th century:
Plate Tectonicsa paradigm shift?
Observations:
earthquake zones & deep earthquakes beneath ocean trenches
variable magnetic field direction in rocks of different ages (1956)
magnetic striping at ocean ridges suggests seafloor spreading
(1961)
Explanations: constructive margins, subduction zones etc
Unifying theory for geology & geomorphology of the Earth
 Can paradigms be compared?
The theoretical framework of alternative paradigms is
so different that they cannot be compared
There is no common language for translation
e.g. Newtonian and Einsteinian physicists have a different
concept of mass and in discussion they talk past each other
Criticism of incommensurability:
If it is agreed that theories are incompatible then they must
be comparable and cannot be incommensurable
Kuhn agreed Newtons and Einsteins theories are
incompatible
 Is data independent and objective?

Cannot isolate theory-neutral data because:

Perception is conditioned by background beliefs
Reporting of data is couched in theoretical language

Criticisms of theory-ladenness of data:

Data may be adequately free of theoretical
contamination to be acceptable to proponents of
alternative paradigms
e.g. Believers in geocentric and heliocentric paradigms
could still agree on statements like on 14th May the Sun
rose at 5:30 am
 Some criticisms of Kuhns ideas...

Between Kuhns normal science and

extraordinary science there are many gradations
(Popper, 1970)

If an experiment does not hold out the possibility

of causing one to revise ones views, it is hard to
see why it should be done at all (Medawar, 1979)
Example 2:
Changing paradigms in geomorphology?
Scriptural catastrophism to uniformitarianism

The present is the

key to the past

From landscape cycles to quantitative methods

a) Process science
b) Historical science
 catastrophism uniformitarianism
Shift

(Orme, 2002 Geomorphology 47)

landscape cycles quantitative methods
Shift

(Orme, 2002 Geomorphology 47)

Kuhns controversies:
Is science rational?
Adopting a new paradigm involves a degree of faith and
is not purely based on objective evidence
The transfer of allegiance from one paradigm to
another is a conversion experience
Peer pressure plays a large role in paradigm acceptance

Is science progressive?
Facts about the world are paradigm-relative
Scientific knowledge is not necessarily cumulative
Does the concept of objective truth even make sense?
 Is scientific knowledge socially
constructed?
Some of Kuhns readers interpreted his work to say
science is entirely non-rational and socially constructed
Two cultures?
1. The humanistic viewpoint in which the scientific method is seen
as embedded within language and culture
2. The scientific viewpoint in which it is believed that the observer
can objectively make non-culturally embedded observations
Discussions on the merits of constructivist and
positivist perspectives are ongoing (hopefully within a
constructive and positive dialogue)
 Kuhns clarifications
Science may be viewed as rational
Incommensurabilty between paradigms is partial
Paradigm choice is made by reasonable shared criteria:
accuracy, scope, consistency, simplicity, fruitfulness etc.
Paradigm choice based on reasonable shared criteria is
rational
Science may be viewed as progressive
Conceived as a set of instruments for solving technical
puzzles in selected areas, science clearly gains in
precision and scope with the passage of time. As an
instrument, science undoubtedly progresses
So...can the scientific method be
rigorously defined?
Many have attempted to define the criteria for a good
theory, such as simplicity, breadth, goodness of fit etc.
No-one has produced a rigorous algorithm (sequence
of instructions) for the selection of scientific theories
Kuhn claimed there is no algorithm for theory choice
Science appears to conform to a looser definition and
more relaxed concept of rationality than often
assumed
Summary
Realism and instrumentalism
Inference to the best explanation
Logical positivists emphasis on theory
Thomas Kuhns emphasis on history
Paradigms, normal and revolutionary science
Science is more loosely defined than often assumed
Science is rational when viewed against shared criteria
As an instrument, it progressively solves empirical
questions
Final thought: What are appropriate and
inappropriate applications of science in geography?