IBP Psychology and Science

Chapter 11: Methodical changes in method

Against universal method:

• We can sustain Feyerabend’s case against method, as long as we get rid of the idea that the notion of method is to be thrown out
• Feyerabend: there is no universal, ahistorical method of science that contains standards that all sciences should live up to if they are to be worthy of the title ‘science’
  • Universal: the proposed method is applicable to all sciences
  • Ahistorical: here means that the method has a timeless character
• Chalmers: We could also say that there are methods and standards in science, but that they can vary from science to science, and can, within a science, be changed
• Worrall: if Chalmers wants to defend a change in scientific method in a way that avoids extreme relativism, then he should show in what way this change would be for the better
  • But what is “better”?

Telescopic for naked-eye data: a change in standards:

• Galileo found that if we use our eyes, there is a hindrance when looking at small, bright, distant light sources against a dark background, called irradiation.
• Irradiation can be removed by using a telescope
• Galileo used straightforward, practical demonstration to show that our naked eye isn’t always the best source of information
• Through convincing of his rivals, Galileo started the trend of replacing sense-observations with data acquirement through the use of instruments, which was at its very core a violation of what was up until then considered a main criterion for ‘science itself’
  • He convinced his opponents by focusing on common ground: there was overlap in what they aimed for, like wanting to describe the motions of the heavenly bodies supported by by empirical evidence. Observations he shared with his opponents were sufficient to convince them

Aim of science

• The goal is to arrive at ultimate explanations – which are explanations so down to the core that they themselves do not need any explanation; they are selfexplanatory in the state that they present themselves in
• The general idea is that any part of these aims, methods, standards, theories, and observational facts that make up a science can be changed in a progressive manner.
• We should not change everything at once, because then we have nothing to stand on
• The idea that rival scientists live in such different worlds that they share no views does not occur in real life. If it were, there would be no progress to science. There is no need for a universal, ahistorical account of scientific method to be able to give an objective account of progress in science, as well as how the method could be changed for the better.

Resources:

What is This Thing Called Science 4^th Edition (CHALMERS)