2

I have seen some posts about knowledge but want to explore another perspective.

Here is the sort of thing I thought, maybe you can help with a complete answer or at least give some recommendation. The question is how knowledge, in close relation with scientific knowledge, is obtained.

There are, it seems, three ways of knowledge:

  1. Observation and classification. Also comparison. It is produced when looking what unify and distinguish things. Knowledge produced by Linneo on botanics, or states of matter (gas, liquid, solid...) and so on, are examples.
  2. Causality: Understanding the cause. Some could argue: 'fire burns because of wood.' Then as you are smarter, you cover the five and it powers off. So it needs more than wood, it needs oxygen.
  3. Reductionism. Explaining from the more general point of view of deeper levels.

This naive list is not correct but that's the sort of scheme I'm looking for.

1

I would suggest the work of Karl Popper, in particular The Logic of Scientific Discovery and Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge

Popper argues that science should adopt a methodology based on falsifiability, because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a reproducible experiment or observation can refute one. According to Popper: "non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science. Thus a few stray basic statements contradicting a theory will hardly induce us to reject it as falsified. We shall take it as falsified only if we discover a reproducible effect which refutes the theory"

1

Nowadays, numerical simulation is a pretty new way of acquiring legitimate scientific knowledge. For example, molecular self-assembly, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-85869-0_12 or http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/cp/c7cp06181a (or just google "molecular self-assembly numerical simulation" for lots of links). Also, for example, numerical simulations have largely taken the place of nuclear tests since the test ban treaty, e.g., http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9805/14/india.nuke.computers/index.html and https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/supercomputers-offer-tools-for-nuclear-testing--and-solving-nuclear-mysteries/2011/10/03/gIQAjnngdM_story.html

0

Let me suggest Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970, Chicago, University of Chicago Press). One critic wrote,

...Kuhn asserted that scientific truths depend upon agreement among scientists operating under a guiding intellectual umbrella, or paradigm, built around a core of ideas based on irrational cultural and sociopolitical factors. (Sidky, Skeptical Inquirer, Mar-Apr 2018, p. 39)

You might not agree with Kuhn, but given his influence, if you are asking how we obtain scientific knowledge, Kuhn's work is one source to consult.

  • Thanks a lot. I don't mind to disagree. In fact, it is frequently better being that I'm usually wrong ha – santimirandarp May 30 '18 at 2:02
  • 1
    Although there is an element of truth in what Kuhn has said, the basic foundations of scientific inquiry are not based on this. To take this as a guide is to misunderstand basic science. You might want to study what is called the 'scientific method'. The scientific method is not built upon irrational or sociopolitical factors. You can start by doing a search on this forum of 'scientific method' or 'scientific methodology'. – Swami Vishwananda May 30 '18 at 5:02
  • @SwamiVishwananda “The scientific method is not built upon irrational or sociopolitical factors.” But Kuhn is saying that it is, and for that he is worth reading. This source has value, is all I am saying. – Mark Andrews May 30 '18 at 5:58

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.