Blog #1: 'Scientific revolutions' and the pursuit of knowledge

The writings of Toulmin, Feyerabend, Lakatos, and others render inevitable the conclusion that science is not a monolithic, infallible body of knowledge devoid of ideological moorings. “Science” is simply the prevailing orthodoxy that could eventually be overturned by yet another competing science. The scientific consensus can shift. This is clearly proven by the inadequacy of systems of analysis (Cartesian, Marxist, etc.), including history, that had sought to establish science as a hegemony and an ultimately decisive undertaking.

The idea of falsifiable science (and therefore, falsifiable facts, knowledge, “truth”) is admittedly unsettling. Indeed, it is more convenient to cling to what we think are stable bodies of knowledge or belief systems. That science is immutable seems to be a popular notion. But the falsifiability of science is crucial to the generation of knowledge. Without acknowledging it, scientific thinking will be unable to advance how humans understand themselves and the world around them.

The Copernican revolution
from http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/pictures/k4.jpg

It also has to be acknowledged that the state and other actors try to influence the production of knowledge. We do not have to look far beyond for examples of sanctioned science. Government statistics are official statistics (albeit subject to revision, e.g., gross domestic product, inflation). The Philippine government supports the National Academy of Science and Technology and elevates select (elite) practitioners to the prestigious roster of National Scientists. The government, despite its meager fiscal resources, funds research undertakings based on its own (predetermined) research agenda. An example is the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, which, while operating independently as a policy think tank, conducts its research based on a state mandate. It exists primarily to influence policymaking.

As a young journalist, I saw (even executed) firsthand the production of knowledge or discourse (“truth”) on a daily basis using the format of news. We were taught to be objective “truth-tellers,” to report only the facts and not editorialize. This pursuit of journalistic truth is a solemn duty, without which journalism becomes advocacy, or worse, propaganda.

Now, even journalism recognizes that “all truths — even the laws of science — are subject to revision,” but that journalists “operate by them in the meantime because they are necessary and they work.” Thus, journalism pursues a “practical and functional,” not absolute or scientific truth (Kovach and Rosenstiel). The problem is that journalism can be influenced by interest groups such as politicians, state bureaucracies, businesses (advertisers), lobbyists, international agencies, and NGOs. Journalistic content (presented as “facts”) can be the product of power play.

Economics, which I covered as a journalist, is also dominated by prevailing orthodoxies (neoliberal, Keynesian) that are constantly challenged. For instance, the pursuit of economic growth has since been tempered by the egalitarian desire to achieve inclusivity, as a result of high rates of growth that had not translated into more employment and less poverty.

“Scientific revolutions” (Kuhn) are simply manifestations of our common and constant quest for knowledge, even at the cost of doing away with what we already know and are comfortable with.

In a skeptical, postmodern world, monolithic science can no longer be the final refuge that will wipe out virulent opposition that occurs across the board (as exemplified by climate-change deniers and intelligent design advocates in the right and anti-vaccine, anti-GMO activists in the left). Whatever we think of these groups, their persistence tells us that skepticism is deeply embedded in the way humans think, even when confronted by scientific evidence.