Not needed for the idea of 'science'

/

Some readers of my main blog post on science will have missed the following concepts and people:

  • hypothesis
  • theory
  • (scientific) laws
  • experiment
  • Kuhn
  • Popper

In this blog I want to explain why. 

In one of his blogs Rhett Allain, a physics professor, explains in his own words that these three concepts, hypothesis, theory and scientific law, long discussed and regarded as essential for the "scientific method", are in fact culs-de-sac, which don't contribute to science or to anything, have misled and preoccupied thousands, and are better discarded in favour of other ideas, especially the simple and much more constructive concept of "model". These three concepts, standard as they may seem to be, are unnecessary and force people into a straitjacket that constrains rather than liberates and stimulates.

Hypotheses and theories

A hypothesis is an idea. Theories have been written and speculated about endlessly, mostly reifying or even deifying the concepts. There is no content to them that has value. A theory is a model, a set of ideas, a possible way of seeing an aspect of things happening. And to the extent theory is used as a word for what constrains us from perceiving reality "as it is", to the extent that it means the glasses we use to see, it describes constraints and modes of observation, not science.

Laws in science

Scientific laws aren't laws, and don't have a special status. Like theories, they are just sets of ideas that we play around with, or that have been played around with for some time. They change over time, either within days, or over some centuries, and they depend on context, on the observer, on values, and on politics and power. There is nothing legal or sacrosanct here. Call them models!

Playing with models

"Model" is so much better. And "predictions". And "playing". Let's focus on those when we do science. When we do it in public, and communicate about it, it becomes science.

Experimentation

Experiments are overrated. When you can do them, so much the better. But when you can't, you do something else. From astronomy and geology onwards to many other parts of science, there is a mix between observing, thinking, influencing, and conducting classical experiments. Unlike what's often said, there is no privileged status for experiments. Science is creative, flexible, mutable, political, human. In that respect more like art and play than anything else.

Kuhn

I did not mention Thomas Kuhn because I think he's not needed. He seems to enthuse a lot of people who write about science - in my words, they do philosophy or methodology. Nothing wrong with that. I like that too, and it can give people great joy. But I don't think it has to do with science, which is a central human activity. Read the inimitable Chad Orzel in 'Science is what makes us human'. If Kuhn has something important to say (and I must say I am not convinced), it would be about the history of science, and how things happen culturally and unconsciously. People who talk about paradigms, and think about them too much, aren't doing themselves or their topic any good. Maybe people do science inside a paradigm. That's fine. And we speak in prose and breathe air. But if we think about that too much, we are just distracting ourselves.

Popper

Popper was a forthright, broad-shouldered and enthusiastic thinker. But his influence on science and scientific thinking has not been beneficial, in my opinion. He was a philosopher of science, rather than a scientist. His influence on others, and his personal magnetism, were infectious and stimulating. But he thought too much about truth, theories, reason, metaphysics, and definitive solutions to age-old problems. He did not himself exemplify scientific activity. Like Kuhn, he may be fun to read, but others are more fruitful.

Inconsistency and exceptions

I am very keen in my blogging to be practical, to come up with ideas, to say what I think and write about people whom I like and who have made contributions. I think this generates much more light and good things than finding out what's wrong, who is wrong, criticising and breaking down. I simply felt in this case, given how important science is, that it was worth, outside my main blog on science, to deal with these few issues.