NS 310 Science in Science Fiction Spring 2008
SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS ON SCIENCE
The paradox of science in modern life: science ≠ mythology, but
it often functions in public
discourse (such as science fiction) as
if it were mythology
Central course goal: Examine the differences between science as done by scientists and science as portrayed in popular media
A basic conflict in
science fiction:
Literature is about internal response to external events, while science is about reliable description of external events
Very important:
while rhetoric and argument are all used by scientists, science relies on
external evidence in a fundamentally different way than other forms of narratives .
Aristotle (384-322 BC)
- straddled both argument and empirical observation
- made endless observations about the natural world and human institutions. Some observations very keen, others sloppy.
- wrote influential treatises on rhetoric (methods of arguing) and logic,
- viewed universe as hierarchal, hence objects moved to their “proper” place.
Scholastics 1100-1500 AD. A school of philosophy in the late middle ages, based in part upon Aristotle’s logical and rhetorical tools (championed by Thomas Aquinas).
Used to: discern correct beliefs from false+ used to resolve apparent contradictions
e.g. between different statements in Bible, or between Bible and Aristotle.
Galileo (1564-1642): Made methodical, deliberate investigations into mechanics and astronomy. Was able to show through such investigations
-- Aristotle was wrong about mechanics and gravity (more later)
-- Ptolemy was wrong about astronomy
Isaac Newton (1643-1727): Invented calculus, made full combination of mathematics with physics. Also did experimental observations into optics. Importantly, suggested universal laws of nature (which differs from Aristotle).
A description (not a definition):
“Modern science is an efficient method to discover reproducible and reliable causal relations in the natural, external world.”
Key elements: (1) Natural, external world: (2) Causal relations (3) Reproducible and reliable. (4) Efficient..
Two kinds of knowledge or discourse:
“Irreproducible” knowledge: revelation or authority; looks to the past
“Reproducible” knowledge: recipes; looks to future.
Science is hard, so often treated as if it were irreproducible (e.g. from authority figure).
The culture of science: An economy of novelty. The combination of novelty, convincing, and reproducible recipes means scientists often cultivate skepticism.
Outward directed skepticism: Skepticism towards authority and peers. Scientists are rewarded if they can convincingly overturn old theories or facts or find new theories/facts
Inward directed skepticism fosters more convincing evidence.
A theory is a narrative or related narratives that help us to (a) organized established empirical facts and (b) make predictions about observations or experiments not yet carried out. A good theory will (a) explain a large of already known facts (b) within as simple a framework as possible (c) make predictions about future facts
Falsifiability: A theory is “falsifiable” if all parties agree that certain outcomes would mean the theory is false. (due to Karl Popper)
Two views on science and rhetoric
Naïve realism: science is “just the facts” and rhetoric and culture play no role in science
• unspoken belief in Platonic reality that scientists just “discover”
• typical attitude of many scientists (esp. physical sciences, less so in biology)
Naïve idealism/rhetoricism: science is all culturally determined
• focus on scientific “texts,” disregard for possibility of external “reality”
• typical attitude of postmodernists
Science is not culture neutral: science is guided by narratives and metaphors those narratives are influenced by culture. Nonetheless, science is not just a product of culture. Observation and experiment can and often do contradict cultural assumptions.
If this were not true, we would not have so many “surprising”
scientific results:
Paradigm: a higher narrative (metanarrative) for
theories or even for the method of inquiry. (e.g., Aristotle’s hierarchal
universe,
Controversies in science vs. culture
Sometimes
“controversies” in science are really collisions between
scientific narratives (theories) and cultural narratives. Example: global
warming “controversy” is in large part conflict between scientific evidence and
the paradigm of free-market capitalism.
3 models for scientific “progress”
1. Eternal growth. 2. Eternal revolution 3. Plateau
Questions you should ask yourself:
* Do you understand how experimental and observation evidence go beyond mere logic and rhetoric, and who were the key historical players in this evolution?
* What is a theory? What does “just a theory” mean? What is the relation between theory and experiment/observation? Are they unconnected?
* What is the difference between reproducible and irreproducible discourse, and where lies science? What is the (ideal) scientific attitude towards authority?
* What do I mean by naive realism and naive idealism/rhetoricism? Why do I say they are both naive?
* What is a paradigm, in science and elsewhere? Can you think of examples?
* Can you give examples of narratives about science?
* Is science “the searth for truth”? How would you modify this statement?