Any scientist who cares to take a first step in science and before doing science has to affirm in his own mental convictions the validity and existence of two methodological assumptions.
They are:
1. Uniformity of law across space and time: Natural laws are constant across space and time.
2.Uniformity of process across space and time.
The axiom of uniformity of law across time and space is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past or even as predicatble tools for the future. As James Hutton wrote: “If the stone, for example, which fell today, were to rise again tomorrow, there would be an end of natural philosophy [i.e., science], our principles would fail, and we would no longer investigate the rules of nature from our observations.” The constancy of natural laws must be assumed. A phenomenon that occurs 'at this instant' is already a past event the next instant! Making inferences about the past and predicting the behaviour of the Universe in the future is wrapped up in the difference between studying the observable present and the unobservable past and future. In the observable present, induction can be regarded as self-corrective. That is to say, erroneous beliefs about the observable world can be proven wrong and corrected by other observations. This is Popper's principle of FALSIFIABILITY.
However, processes are observable only at any given instant by their very nature. Therefore, in order to come to conclusions about the validity of the observed event both for the past and its predictability for the future, we must assume the invariance of nature's laws.
The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Francis Bacon showed nearly 400 years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science. Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations. Since the assumption is itself vindicated by induction, it can in no way “prove” the validity of induction. G.G. Simpson in the year 1963 wrote "Uniformity is an unprovable postulate justified, or indeed required, on two grounds. First, nothing (?) in our incomplete but extensive knowledge of history disagrees with it. Second, only with this postulate is a rational interpretation of history possible, and we are justified in seeking—as scientists we must seek—such a rational interpretation".
As regards uniformity of processes across space and time - it implies that if a past phenomenon can be understood as the result of a process now acting in time and space, do not invent an extinct or unknown cause as its explanation. We should try to explain events by causes now in operation without inventing extra, fancy, or unknown causes, however plausible in logic, if available processes suffice. This is known as the scientific principle of parsimony or Occam's Razor.
"Strict uniformitarianism may often be a guarantee against pseudo-scientific phantasies and loose conjectures, but it makes one easily forget that the principle of uniformity is not a law, not a rule established after comparison of facts, but a methodological principle, preceding the observation of facts ..." (Hooykaas, R. 1963) It is the logical principle of parsimony of causes and of economy of scientific notions.
This is quite a useful tool actually since "... a limit is set to conjecture, for there is only one way in which two things are equal, but there are an infinity of ways in which they could be different." (Hooykaas)
Stephen J. Gould simplified the issue, noting that Lyell's “uniformity of process” was also an assumption: “As such, it is another a priori methodological assumption shared by all scientists and not a statement about the empirical world".
If we understand this much, then there is hope that the possibility of existence of the occult and its amenability for being studied scientifically or in some other manner perhaps involving a slightly different approach, can be considered.
The dangers of hasty scientific assumptions and mistakenly set ways of thinking that hindered the proper understanding of natural processes can be appreciated by considering the 'Scablands Debate' of Washingon State, USA. This will be dealt with in the next blog, but here I will breifly mention that there were two strands of thought in geology in the nineteenth century : The 'Theory of Uniformitarianism' and the 'Theory of Catastrophism'. By the 20th Century the former had gained widespread acceptance and had colonised the subconscious of most geologists.
These will be dealt with in the next blog posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment