| |
|
Untestable hypotheses are not friendly to the scientific method, and I believe that science returns the favor by being hostile back. Persephone
Hmmm... Interesting. My knee jerk reaction was pretty much that of a materialist:
--The only thing a hypothesis needs to be testable is to make a claim about the material world . Therefore if it isn't testable, it means that it doesn't say anything about the material world and it doesn't have any particular use.
On second thoughts, of course, that's rubbish. Lots of things can say something meaningful / useful but not about the material world - see, for example, emotions, mathematics, art. Usually I have absolutely not problem with such a statement. Indeed, one of my favourite philosophers, Austen, made his name in the late 1940's and (I think) early 1950's by pointing out that language can have meaning / power (in the sense of the ability to perform actions) without being 'testable' against the real world. [This was the big break in Oxford from the Hegel/Russell theories of meaning in logic, and followed on from the collapse of Logical Positism (see my P.S. at the bottom for another reference). Very heavy stuff if you're interested. Austen's a lot more readable and, to my small mind, makes a lot more sense.]
Now, my reaction might just be because I have a tendency to get annoyed at people misunderstanding the basic principles of science - mea culpa. On the other hand, maybe it does reflect something in my mind that tends to give greater weight to the material world. And that is obviously something feminism can say something about.
What the scientific method is, however, is the only way I can think of to test statements about the physical world.
. And, of course, even if the method is sound, every individual employs it subjectively. Hence, peer review, right? Peer review, while appearing democratic and distributed, is in reality a simple tool of a hierarchical system meant to prevent outsiders from asserting themselves. Who designates a peer, for example? ynh
Hmmm... again... interesting.
I agree. Peer review is what I would describe as a second level truth verifciation problem. If you have a test and you perform it then fine, you have verified (or, rather, not disproved) the hypothesis - but the problem at this stage is verifying the claim that (a) the test tests what you say it did (b) you performed the test (c) you performed the test correctly. Review has to be performed, but who can review it other than a peer?
The first point is usually not too difficult for an outsider to break into. They just point out a flaw in the test - say, something it doesn't take into account that could affect the result. It's pretty difficult to avoid having to take account of such a claim, once it has been made (OK, difficulties in making it and getting it noticed by anybody that counts, fine - but letters to the scientific journals can usually do the job even for outsiders.)
The last two points are more difficult - does anybody trust the reviewer and, frankly, do they have the resources? The former point is a real oligarchary issue, because people only trust you if you have proved yourself in the orthodoxy. The latter? Well, you don't get research grants by being fluffy.
So, yes, peer review is a facet of the implementation of the scientific method which I agree does have significant feminist questions.
A better question might be, "How do we prove that scientific method is not at fault?" Can we do this scientifically, without relying on the assumption that the method is correct? If not, if said method cannot defend itself... ynh
A very important question, I think (as do other, bigger brains than me, such as Popper, Ayer and the like). The answer, I think, is "the proof is in the pudding", or to put it a little less glibly:
The scientific method is a way of testing the truth of statements about the material world. To disprove that statement one would have to show that it produced incorrect results and/or allowed untrue statements through. Whilst the impelementation of the scientific method undoubtedly does so, the general tendency is that it has resulted in a large number of extremely complicated and non-obvious statements about the material world which in turn predict other highly non-obvious (non/counter-intuitive) statements which work, i.e. appear to be true on everything we know.
I cannot think of any better test or, more fundamentally, any flaw in the above test. For the moment the scientific method has on numerous occasions not been disproved by its own standards so, on its own standards, it's good (or at least, not bad).
P.S. if you want an example of a test which failed itself, see A.J.Ayer and the Logical Positivism / Vienna School movement in philosophy in the 1930's. "A statement is meaningful only if it can be tested against the material world." It doesn't take much to point out that that statement cannot be tested against the material world, but bugger me they got a lot of print out of the idea for over a decade! |
|
|
