The ways to know reality?

[Angrboda]

This short article might help by way of a primer (there's a helpful diagram as well):

What is the "scientific method''?

The Duhem–Quine thesis (also called the Duhem–Quine problem, after Pierre Duhem and Willard Van Orman Quine) is that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions (also called auxiliary assumptions or auxiliary hypotheses). The hypothesis in question is by itself incapable of making predictions. Instead, deriving predictions from the hypothesis typically requires background assumptions that several other hypotheses are correct; for example, that an experiment worked as designed or that previous scientific knowledge was accurate. For instance, to "disprove" the idea that the Earth is in motion, some people noted that birds did not get thrown off into the sky whenever they let go of a tree branch. This is no longer accepted as empirical evidence that the Earth is not moving, because we have a better understanding of physics.

Although a bundle of hypotheses (i.e. a hypothesis and its background assumptions) as a whole can be tested against the empirical world and be falsified if it fails the test, the Duhem–Quine thesis says it is impossible to isolate a single hypothesis in the bundle. One solution to the dilemma thus facing scientists is that when we have rational reasons to accept the background assumptions as true (e.g. scientific theories via evidence) we will have rational—albeit nonconclusive—reasons for thinking that the theory tested is probably wrong if the empirical test fails.

I haven't studied much philosophy of science, whether from a philosophical angle, historico-critical, or otherwise. However I find recurring themes in people's online representations of "science" and "the scientific method." First, a lot of mythical history is often incorporated, in which the real history of scientific revolutions is simplified and rewritten to fit people's desired ideological views on science (or perhaps this is simply the result of gross ignorance). People typically misunderstand the interdependent relationship between scientific philosophy, philosophy, math and logic. Again, this usually seems an effort to cut the corners off to make it fit in a predetermined hole. I'll ignore scientism, but that does pop up as well. And in addition to mythologizing the history of science, there are often mythical histories of the ideas which contributed to our current scientific practice from the philosophical side.

I get tired of fighting the same battles over and over again, usually due to the average science "booster" being basically ignorant, so I'm not going to do so here. But many of the representations I read on forums are reminiscent of Wolfgang Pauli's comment that, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."


In verifying the Pauli quote, I discovered another of his that is worth sharing:

"I don't mind your thinking slowly; I mind your publishing faster than you think."