by Giano Rocca
Chapter 16:
Definition of the various types of science
The difference between ideology and science, essentially, consists in the verifiability or falsifiability, of the latter. The language of science consists in to do precede the indication of the possibility of realizing a the test or demonstration at the enunciation same. Without the possibility to realize a proof there is not, in fact, scientific law, nor scientific language. Antonella Del Rosso recalled that “any new theory has no validity, if not is confirmed by an experiment (namely, you cannot simply invent an imaginative solution to the mysteries of the Universe without worrying about verified the same) and any experiment must be repeatable (namely, not you can announce some results that no one else is able to reproduce).” (1). These are the principles of science “Galilean”. Then there is the so-called “Science Lysenkoist”, (from the name of an quack, named Trofim Lysenko, agricultural biologist, self-styled “geneticist”, protected by Iosif Stalin) that, on the contrary, is based on the enormity of the enunciated, in order to shield them to every possibility of verifiability, or falsifiability. The verifiability, and the falsifiability, of the assumptions and scientific theories requires that, when you want to formulate a theory or a scientific law, we compare with each theory or ideology, though irrational, even with the awareness of the value of the own theory and of the others irrationality, without prevarication, forcings or foreclosures and prejudices. Popper defined assertions “naturally or physically necessary” (2) “the assertions which can be deduced from a assertive function, which is fulfilled in all worlds that differ from our own, admitted that differ, only with respect to the initial conditions”. He, therefore, in addition to the physical reality, had considered necessary also the natural potentiality, irrespective of the conditions quotas (3). The epistemologists, as Imre Lakatos, say that, both the epistemological conception of demarcation of Popper, or of the falsifiability, (which would be inadequate and unacceptable, as the observations potentially capable of bringing to the falsifiability are of uncertain evaluation themselves. for which the criterion of falsificbility would be quite weak), both the conception of Kuhn of the possibility to derive of the theories from commonly accepted premises, and the support of the brain teaser tradition (the which tradition, both in its first as in the second aspect, in no way distinguishes the science from the pseudo-science and non-science), both the other conceptions of verifiability, which, with respect to the theory of Popper, have the weakness not to seek, in negative, the observations capable of realizing the falsification (while the conception of Popper of the falsifiability as a criterion of scientific validity has the value of allow to recognize the obvious advantage of the theory less generic than the more generic), are inadequate as a criterion of scientificity. The most valid criterion of demarcation seems to be the controllability and the control, where the controllability is the ability to control, by all means made available by the “background knowledge” or contemporary, suitability or adequacy of the proposal analysis, at a given theory, with the reality that the same theory it aims to analyze or who has a real object (which may differ from the one shown) and a sufficient (according to the expectations of the time) correspondence between the theory and the reality (and the its causalities), as can be observed, according to general knowledge (as set of observations enunciated and not real observations) (4) (provided by all sciences) of that specific moment in time. You will therefore have: an scientific validity, more or less full of the various theories, the which scientific validity will be tied to the historical and scientific time under way (since the propositions of observation are not, in itself, certainly true) and not absolute, since it can be graded by the full scientific value, at the pseudo-science, at to essence totally a-scientific, remembering that every field of human knowledge (by the magic, at the various ideologies and the religions) is potentially scientific, namely potentially analyzable, or verifiable, with scientific criteria, so you can discover its scientific essence (or at least that the aforementioned verifiability cannot be excluded in advance, because of the character metaphysical or religious or political, place that the alleged non-verifiability of those fields of human knowledge derives mainly from the specific language, often irrational, adopted by these theories). As far as the theory or logic of knowledge, the conception of Kuhn of the refutation through falsification, of some observational sentencies (5), seems to be valid, although the same refutation is not absolute, but relative to the scientific time, where the refutation of the theories essentially takes place with other theories, also disputable (6). According to some epistemologists, diriment characteristic or “discriminating” of science and, consequently, of scientific theories, is their progressivity: where there is progress of knowledge you have science, otherwise no (7). This criterion, rather than as a criterion of demarcation (8) counts as the logic of scientific discovery, in that the progress it can not be taken as a criterion of demarcation, since even the ideologies, which are, by definition, not-scientific, they can have a cognitive content not null. These ideologies, you demonstrate not-scientific, essentially, in so far as they prevent, with the dogmatism inherent in their character or formulation, the cognitive progress. The ideologies, if formulated in an appropriate manner, and purified of the inhuman aspects, may be controllable, although in this way lose their character dogmatic, they may allow the cognitive progress (9). The controllability: is therefore, a criterion of demarcation and logic of scientific discovery (although the latter is based essentially on the cognitive progress, because the control is always uncertain and problematic, since it is connected only to the science of the fund in place at that given time). However, the audit has a own role also in the field of scientific logic, because the progress itself would not be decidibile without control, and in the absence of control, there would be only proliferation of theories, whose scientificity, and progressiveness, become totally random. Emmanuel Lévinas stated that the experience is not the only source of the thought, by deriving, the latter, from knowledge handed down by others, namely, from the knowledge which comes from the experiences of others and from the perception of own essence and of the nature of the humanity. The experience derives from the senses and instincts, which constitute the basis of life itself, as such (10). Some epistemologists recognize as there are not sciences purely deductive, including the mathematics and logic. All sciences support the own status, on empirical observations corroborating, without the which they could not boast a scientific status, but only the status of hypotheses, open to verification (so the geometries not euclidean they have won the “status” of scientific theories, when it was checked the their heuristic value). On the other hand, all sciences originate from empirical suggestions, due to the same very nature of human thought, which cannot arise if not from analog comparisons. So, from inductive suggestions, arise all forms of knowledge, including the most abstract, as the metaphysical theories. In particular, these latter, are born from intuitions or findings on the nature of the humn being. We can distinguish three fields of scientific knowledge: physical, historical - structural and human - social. If the first field it has been achieved, by time, the degree of full scientific approach, in the second field, the scientificity is still quite partial, because the theories academically accredited are to be considered mere assumptions, devoid of the character of a scientific approach, because they do not have the characteristic of the falsifiability, being fouled by the ideologies. The third field, that is to strictly human, is a field that you can define substantially unexplored, because theories in the act are not able to distinguish correctly between the structural reality, human nature and the interaction between the respective natures of these two entities. It is example psychology, which is affected, in its claim to acquire a scientific valence, from the lack of analysis of the psychic nature of the human being, of the nature of the structural reality and of the interaction between the one and the other.
Karl R. Popper he had distinguished, correctly, the human k
nowledge by the reality historical structural. He considered the structural reality: accidental and arbitrary (11). Defined the knowledge: 3° world, while the structural reality historical would be the 2° world (12). The “scientists”, in the course of their research, they are compared with the contradiction between human nature and the structural reality and, finding himself in the need to choose the latter for the absence, albeit quota, an alternative concretely realizable, they are faced with the need to combine (at least theoretically) human nature with the structural reality historical. This operation succeeds only if it leads the analysis at a level of abstraction such as to allow the acceptance of the absurd as an element of the truth. You create, so, such a theory in which the contradiction, from external becomes internal and accepted, as sublimated in an analysis completely abstract. The emergence of a true science of structural reality historical and of the human nature, will determine the conditions for circumscribe the absurd, causing a full knowledge of it and making it harmless. The scientific truth is characterized by its be cumulative, open to every comparison and challenge. The social sciences and the human sciences (when they will have reached the status of science) will be the heritage of every individual. The current situation of the knowledge of reality structural, on the contrary, is two-sided: an truth ideological, dominant or only, on the one hand, preached by the “intellighentia”, namely by the priests of the dominant ideology; on the other the “truth” practice, lived in the palaces of power and corriponding in the immutable art of management of the power or of the skill said “cunning”. The art of power is acceptable, if the person who manages the power is able to perceive the spirit of time and its evolution in the act, which is often in disagreement with the desire of the majority of the people, which people, often only of aftermath, surrenders to the spirit of the time, of which is always: unaware or unconscious. The rulers who shall take account of the spirit of their time and the authentic good of their nation, deserve the title of statesmen, while those that are solely concerned with the will of the majority are only some politocians.
Popper had stated that there is only certainty of incorrectness of the theories, while of the truth can exist only be doubt (13). The only truth that the human being knows it is the fruit of science, because the scientific method, which constitutes the very essence of the science itself, is the heuristic method that allows to approach, in more or less constant progression, to the knowledge of the real. The science, for its intrinsic rationality, is much more responding, and in keeping with the human nature, with latter, while presenting elements of irrationality is, in itself, rational or tending to rationality, and is the measure same of rationality. To those who possess scientific spirit and acts in accordance with the scientific principle, the doubt remains in every field of knowledge. In fact, the science, does not cancel never of all doubt, even on scientific laws more consolidated, as can always emerge new knowledge, in contradiction, at least partially, with the scientific law established.
Peter Laslett had stated that: who exposes a given theoretical system, with the refutation of a system of others, he has exposed, in advance, the own theoretical bases (14). G. of Ockam had derived the knowledge abstractive from intuitive knowledge or experiential (15). Ockam took the view that the intellect (or the ratiocination) also intervenes in the intuitive knowledge, collaterally within the meaning. The scientific method, which captures the essence of science itself, is to highlight the foundations of every scientific assumed, be it: hypothesis, theory or scientific law. The falsification, if any, of these foundations, would involve the same falsification of the assumption. The verifications of these assumptions and their “discussion”, or revocation in doubt, is always open, and highly desirable, for the scientific method. Popper did derived the inventive, that he considered the main source of the knowledge, from the biological evolution, which would result, precisely, in the capacity with inventiveness and cognitive (16); he revalued, in this way, the deductive method, believing that human nature, being the very essence of the universal, can be the source of the rationality, of knowledge and, therefore, of science. He neglected the cognitive source, deriving from the experience and the storage of the same. Popper had believed that the theories or scientific hypotheses, precede and guide the observation, and not the contrary (17). This concept has its validity, even if it cannot be an excuse to exclude any validity to the inductive process. The of Popper epistemology, if it does not contain the principle of falsification, would be a pure return to the “irrationalism” and at to the anti-scientific approach, of deductive method (typically feudal). The falsification is not an expression of the deductive logic, as he had claimed Popper (18), but the method deductive-inductive, on the basis of which are formulated the hypothesis, and uses mainly the induction, as verification or falsification. The critical against the inductivism of Popper, has validity, in that as it is directed to the criterion of the verification, which has major limitations with respect to the principle of falsification. Popper had placed the probability calculation in contrast to the corroboration (19). The who is criticized by his detractors, since the calculation of probabilities is, itself, a corroboration. The fallibility of scientific theories does not demonstrate how knowledge cannot derive from the experience, as had considered Popper (20), but simply that the experience is, stilland always, limited and imperfect. The regularity is, indisputably, natural and, then, “antecedent”, as had affirmed Kant (21) and had recognized the same Popper (22). He ended up to realize, implicitly, as his theory against the inductivism is nonscientific because “undamaged” from criticism and confutations (23). Alfred Tarski had considered as a proposition absolutist of the truth, the assertion that a proposition is true if and only if, it corresponds to the facts (24). The scientific truth, in fact, although it must correspond to reality, it must indicate the limits within which it is valid, or corresponding to which of many reality, is the specific one proposition. The “formal logic”, exposed by Popper, highlights how in all logic there is a measure, greater or lesser, of scientificity, or adherence, to a given reality (25). Popper had admitted as the ultimate end, is: the search for truth. He proposed, as reality intermediate, the search for the “verisimilitude” (26). Tarski had proposed the construction of a “formalized language” or scientific (27) which is to be realized, while you are using the normal language. The experiential process is essential and constitutive of the construction of knowledge, as had recognized the same Popper. He stated that the “3° world” or the world of knowledge, has origin from the human being and is greater than the human individuality, but not its essence (28). Affirming that the activity of the understanding is part of the “3° World”, he implicitly recognized as each critical activity, if scientific, is foreign to the structural reality historic, and feature, instead, of the “world” of knowledge (29) or of the human nature and of its ability to be rational. Roger Bacon and Diltey believed that to understand the whole of a theory you should understand their constituent parts, and to understand these latter it should be clear fully the overall (30). The theoretical together is inseparable from the individual parts and vice versa. To know an ideal system must have of it a vision of the whole: an “situational analysis” (31). Namely, it is necessary to make a prior analysis of the general situation, held in scientific terms. The scientific method is the quintessence of science, as acknowledge some epistemologists (32). The topological theory of the size, created by Peano, demonstrates the relationship bi-unique between qualitative and quantitative differences. The principle of induction completes the basis of the arithmetic, to which it is returned to the whole mathematics (33). The scientific method is a dynamic process and progressive, in time. Often consists of an unconscious process or not fully systematized, nor always rationalised, but capable of advancing knowledge (34). The scientific revolutions generate a new philosophy and a new scientific methodology, the which latters transform the ratios between the various fields of knowledge (35).
The use of “paradig
m” was proposed by R. K. Merton, as an explanation of the assumptions of the concepts and fundamental propositions, used. This method had the purpose of avoiding the use, voluntary or less, of concepts and assumptions not declared (36). The functions of the paradigms are essentially: designed to denote the main information of the analysis; analytical, in the sense of clarifying what is logically derivable from what is incorporable; also serve for the theoretical accumulation of the interpretations, in addition to the systematic and comparative tabulation of the concepts and to the coding of the methods for qualitative analysis, in a rigor that approaches to the quantitative analysis (37). Scientists of all branches of knowledge: natural sciences, human and social, feel the need to search, for its own science, the “laws of form”, namely the organization of their field of inquiry. They intuit a certain commonality of forms, between the various sciences. This is confirmed by the various congresses, on this subject, held by philosophers and historians of science. Science consists in a cognitive methodology, or a set of cognitive methodologies which, often, they benefit of the existence of other cognitive methods, not scientific, to increase knowledge. However the method of the “formalisations” pseudo-mathematics and the explanations, has determined a false scientific methodology, which can serve to continue in the masking from “science” of some positions that are, in reality, purely ideological.
Scientific Theories allow a search quiet, with precise benchmarks. The assumptions are the expression of the doubts and of he research itself. The doubt is the generator of scientific knowledge. John B. Bury had stated that every scientific hypothesis, to be such, must be deduced from the known causes, and should be verified, by comparing it with reality (38). Kurt Lewin had stated that in every science it is necessary to develop theories, previously as to data search “that specifying the general with the ability to grasp the concrete of each specific situation" (39). Such theories must be formulated in a way devoid of prejudices, but as a working hypothesis, editable in the comparison with the reality. Aristotle had attributed to Socrates the merit of being the founder of “inductive reasoning” (40), namely of the definition of the essence of a thing, starting from special cases. Plato had referred as Socrates had considered research, namely the way, par excellence, to attain knowledge, as the only valid aspect of life, being knowledge as an purpose of the human being (41). Epicurus had considered research as a means to free the human being from the fear (42).
Plato, on the basis of the theories Socratic, had stated that virtue is unique, and identifies herself with knowledge (43), since the knowledge has for natural object: what is the good. Spinoza had recognized as the knowledge, if inadequate, involves the falsehood (44) and, then, as only the scientific knowledge can identify with the truth (albeit relative). Spinoza identified the scientific knowledge with the purpose of the mind and the guiding principle of morality (45). Immanuel Kant had stated that what is a matter of faith “is only sufficient subjectively and meanwhile is deemed insufficient objectively” (46), while the object of science is “sufficient both subjectively as objectively”. He wanted to say that only what is the object of science is fully valid for the human being and fully moral (47), being fully knowable. He had defined as knowledge “historical” is: that which the subject had acquired without the intervention of the reason. He had defined as rational: the thought processed rationally from the subject (48) itself.
John Robinson Pierce was the first to affirm that the random element, in physics, is regulated by the laws of the case or “statistical probability”, namely that the case is subject to a sort of determinism indirect physical (49). He expounded the main definitions of truth:
- truth: as correspondence to the facts,
- truth: as a coherence with the rest of knowledge,
- truth: as utility or usability pragmatic (50).
The “Quantum Mechanics”, supporter of the universal validity of the laws of probability, was considered by Einstein valid in its entirety, as has been proven experimentally, although inaccurate in its formulation. This, in so far as it is not possible to exclude, completely, randomness nor the determination. Some scientists recognize as quantum mechanics does not contradict the concept of causality nor the teleologia. It involves only the taking into account of the multiplicity of the causes (51). The Principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg does not exclude the deterministic nature of the universe, although there may be different levels of determination, not all being investigated and perhaps some not investigable. The very existence of a cognitive evolution, in the sense cumulative and quantifiable, demonstrates the validity of the deterministic principle. The denial the deterministic principle mean denying the science itself and even the human being, as being who seeks to knowledge, as its fundamental characteristic and its need, not compressible.
