In this blog post, we will examine how the objectivity of scientific knowledge can vary depending on the era and perspective through Popper’s falsificationism and Kuhn’s paradigm theory.
The heliocentric theory and the theory of relativity are scientific theories that we often encounter in science class. So how are these scientific theories established and developed, and how can they be considered facts? And can we say that various scientific theories and knowledge are absolutely objective? To answer these questions, we will examine Popper and Kuhn’s arguments on the objectivity of science and scientific knowledge. We will also examine the development process of theories in their arguments and whether objectivity is guaranteed in that process.
What is science? Popper put forward critical rationalism and falsificationism. Critical rationalism is the idea that science can grow through criticism and that theories must be tested as rigorously as possible. Falsificationism is the idea that the logic of science is not proof but falsification, and that scientific progress is an endless cycle of conjecture and falsification. In response to Popper’s argument about science, Kuhn argued that science begins with the abandonment of critical discussion. Kuhn also presented the concept of “paradigms,” which are examples that become norms and traditions that arise in the process of following norms, to support his argument. According to Kuhn, science begins with the abandonment of critical discussion, and normal science is an attempt to fit nature into a relatively rigid box created in advance by paradigms.
How are various scientific theories established and developed, and how can the objectivity of those theories be justified? In response to these questions, Popper criticized logical empiricism and proposed falsifiability. He argued that no universal statements can be derived through induction, and that it is impossible to support theories through observation. In other words, no matter how many observations are made, it is impossible to support a theory probabilistically. He also presented the possibility of falsification, arguing that individual case statements (observations) cannot support universal statements, but they can negate them. Therefore, he argued that empirical inquiry in science is intended to eliminate hypotheses, and that hypotheses that are not eliminated can be considered confirmed. In other words, when hypotheses are eliminated through falsification based on falsifiability, the hypotheses that remain can be considered objective. In contrast, Kuhn argued that scientific activity neither confirms nor refutes theories, and presented the paradigm of normal science. The analysis of the development of scientific knowledge must explain what science has actually done, and thus follow the “paradigm” that determines the research methods, research directions, and criteria for legitimacy through the history of science. In other words, scientific research is the process of adjusting theories to nature within the paradigm established through the history of science.
We have examined Popper and Kuhn’s views on science, the algorithm of scientific development, and the justification of the objectivity of scientific knowledge. In learning about Popper and Kuhn’s views, I considered the definition and significance of science and how the objectivity of scientific theories can be justified. I believe that science is the process of understanding actual objective facts about nature through theory. Furthermore, the process of studying science is a process of understanding the objective nature of things through a single paradigm, as proposed by Kuhn. Here, the paradigm refers to the scientific method, the direction of research, and the standards of observation (units of measurement). I believe that the objectivity of scientific knowledge can be justified within a single paradigm. I would like to present the following arguments to support this claim.
First, if the paradigm changes, the criteria for judging the objectivity of scientific knowledge will also change. In other words, within a paradigm, the objectivity of scientific knowledge can be justified based on the criteria for objectivity of that paradigm. Examples of this include Einstein’s declaration that it is unnecessary to explain the principle of light propagation through ether, and the dispute between Newton and Descartes’ school of thought regarding remote action. As can be seen in the following examples, theories presented to explain natural phenomena may differ depending on the standards and research methods used within a paradigm. However, if a group of scientists adopts a single paradigm and observes nature within that paradigm, the most suitable hypothesis among various hypotheses will exist, and that hypothesis can be regarded as objective scientific knowledge.
Second, it is because the way we observe and view nature differs depending on the concepts established within the paradigm. As times change and the paradigm within the scientific community changes, the same phenomena, objects, and events can be defined and observed differently. Ancient people described planets as “wandering stars,” and their definition was vague. This vague definition of planets was redefined by the International Astronomical Union in 2006 as objects that must orbit the sun, be round enough to form a sphere due to their own gravity, and exclude smaller neighboring celestial bodies. However, this definition is also vague, as it only applies to the solar system and cannot be considered an accurate definition that can be applied to all of nature. As such, theories can be interpreted differently depending on the definitions of phenomena and objects within a single paradigm, and objectivity can also vary depending on the paradigm. Therefore, the objectivity of scientific knowledge can be established within a paradigm.
Third, there is no way to prove the validity of scientific theories. Although objective facts about nature exist, no one knows the objective facts about nature. We can only make assumptions based on our observations of nature. Therefore, objectivity can be justified within a paradigm based on the assumptions and observation standards of a group of scientists. However, we do not know whether objectivity within this paradigm is absolutely objective in all paradigms. Objective facts about absolute nature will be valid in all paradigms, but we cannot verify or prove them. Therefore, scientific theories based on observations of nature within a paradigm can only be justified within that paradigm. Take Newton’s law of universal gravitation, for example. This law cannot be clearly proven for all spaces and all times, but it has been verified only within the solar system through mass and displacement determined within the paradigm established by the scientific community. In this way, we can justify the objectivity of scientific knowledge within our paradigm.
We examined Popper and Kuhn’s arguments through questions such as: What is science? How are scientific theories established and developed? How can the objectivity of these theories be justified? From Popper’s falsifiability, we learned that it is impossible to infer universal propositions from singular propositions. In other words, it is impossible to say that a scientific theory is objective based on a few observations. Furthermore, through Kuhn’s concept of paradigm, we can see the claim that nature is understood through research methods, observation scales, and concepts of phenomena and objects established within a paradigm determined by a group of scientists.
Based on the arguments of Popper and Kuhn, I have made the following claims. I believe that science is the process of understanding actual objective facts about nature through theory. Furthermore, the process of studying science is a process of understanding the objective nature of things through a single paradigm, as presented by Kuhn. Here, the paradigm refers to the scientific method of research, the direction of research, and the standards of observation (units of measurement). I believe that the objectivity of scientific knowledge can be justified within a single paradigm. As a basis for this argument, I pointed out the contradictions that arise when departing from a paradigm and mentioned that absolute objectivity cannot be derived from observation. I believe that my argument is closer to Kuhn’s argument than Popper’s. However, it cannot be said that it is contrary to Popper’s argument. I agree with Popper’s anti-inductivism, and I believe that justifying the objectivity of scientific knowledge through observation is an attempt to justify an infinite number of cases through only a few cases. Through this discussion, I hope that a more solid paradigm will be established within the scientific community and that efforts will be made to incorporate more of nature through scientific theories.
