More specifically, why are sciences (physics, chemistry, engineering, et al) so well-trusted while other subjects (sociology, economics, politics) tend to be less trusted?
What is asked would require a book chapter or even an entire book. What I’ll
give is an answer furnished by the philosophers, but rarely applies to
philosophy itself. It is the notion of Justified True Belief,* or JTB. This
means you can justify your assertion (i.e. prove it based on accepted knowledge
and logic), you establish it is true (thus not refutable), and you believe it. This
is not quite how it is discussed in philosophy discussions. In most, one begins
with the belief, then proves it’s true by some justification, which has a broad
interpretation. What we have presented is how JTB works in the classroom. There
we are presented with the truth (e.g. proposition), followed by its
justification (e.g. proof, experiment), and finally, the student believes it. In
scientific research, the process often begins with a “What if” type of
question, and this leads to JTB in some but no specific order. Co-equal with
JTB is the consensus of the foundations of the subject (in math called axiom)
and methods of justification. For example, if a biologist justifies a truth
using postmodern reasoning, it is likely given less credence than another, who
uses strictly rigorous biological techniques.
Most of the sciences are built upon Justified True Belief. This gives them
credibility, sustainability, and longevity. Yet, all these theories are subject
to falsifiability, an event or argument that demonstrates incorrect foundations
or spurious logic. All scientific theories have had “revolutions of
falsification” over the centuries**. All scientists accept that current science
is only temporary. This puts sciences in a permanent state of suspense. Remarkably,
science as a whole accepts this, though substantial groups of scientists become
wedded to their particular JTBs.
Beware of anyone who claims this science or that is closed, as in permanent
and immutable. This is dead wrong.
On the other hand subjects such as politics, sociology, and economics do not
have such conclusions, unless you accept what is given knowledge, agree on the
structure of argumentation, and believe the conclusions. It is so, for
instance, that economics pretends to be a science with rigorous arguments, but
the foundation of any particular economic theory is a set of premises that less
than a plurality agrees on. (BTW, there are at least 50 viable economic
theories.)
Sociology and politics are similar. There is no firmament of foundations for
either, each with multiple alternatives. Therefore, while you may have a
justified true belief in any particular alternative, only a minority will
agree. Consensus has proved impossible to achieve. Specifically, social-political-based
consensus and justifications seem to have limited longevity.
This is a brief and incomplete explanation, but it furnishes a starting
point to make distinctions.
*Justified true belief was once the lingua franca of new knowledge,
but this has been recently demonstrated as incorrect. Check out the Gettier
problem, as formulated by philosopher Edmund Gettier in 1963. More is available
at https://medium.com/confusions-and-elucidations/justified-true-belief-fda233d35de1
and countless other sources.
** Well, maybe some laws such as Archimedes' Laws of The Lever and Buonancy
have survived.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.