What Is Science? (‘Where Is the Truth?’)

The other day, my 8-year-old son asked me: “What is your favourite movie?” He was surprised that I couldn’t give a title easily. Obviously he doesn’t realise that I have seen many more movies than him, and his passion for Star Wars is such that his answer to this question is crystal clear. But thinking about it, there is actually a movie I like to see again from time to time, certainly for the music and the dances and for the setting in Paris, but above all for the philosophical theme. In this musical comedy film by G. Cukor, called ‘Les Girls’, the same story (involving four dancers in Paris) is told in court by three of the four dancers after one of them published her memoirs, and another one sued her for defamation. During the trial, a man walks along the tribunal’s street carrying a sign saying ‘where is the truth?’ — evidently, each version of the story was slightly different.

The truth, or rather the scientific truth (if it exists), is central to one of the first science sessions at university during my PGCE training. The title of the session is actually ‘What is science?’ and our first task is indeed to write our own individual answer to that question. Then we are given a set of cards each displaying a statement on science or rather the nature of science (e.g. ‘science describes nature’, or ‘the aim of a scientist is to prove their theory right’) and in small groups we have to decide if we agree or disagree with each statement, or have a neutral position. The teacher circulates from table to table, at a reasonable distance so as to listen to us without disturbing our discussions. Afterwards, he gives us a short introduction to philosophy of science. He starts with Bacon’s (1561–1624) absolutist view of knowledge, according to which the truth exists and is found through observations leading to a hypothesis which is, in turn, proved or not through further observations or experimentations (a process called induction). In this view, the scientist and their emotions don’t play any role in the discovery of the truth. The teacher then moves on to Popper (1902–1994), who is famous above all for his distinction between scientific and non-scientific theories: if a theory can be falsified (i.e. shown to be false), then it is a scientific theory. Popper rejected the inductivist view of the scientific method and claimed instead that scientific knowledge progresses through production of conjectures (or tentative theories) followed by error elimination (by attempts at falsification). In addition, Popper introduced the idea that observations are theory-laden in the sense that a scientist will be able to notice elements that would otherwise be easily overlooked because it is (or not) what they had expected to find — they had already made assumptions according to a developing theory. For instance, Darwin wouldn’t have observed the differences in various species if he hadn’t already had in mind his evolution theory. However, Popper held a realist view of science as he thought that science truly describes nature.

Our teacher insists on the fact that in both Bacon’s and Popper’s views there is no emotional commitment by the scientists. At this stage of the lesson, he asks us to imagine that we are in the middle-ages: what are our beliefs? Then he explains that in the medieval world the Earth is seen as a living body (Mother Nature) and God has determined a chain of beings in which everything has its place, similar to the current social world view in which everyone has a fixed place in society. The teacher holds a stone in his hand and asks us what would happen if he releases it. It would fall down, and this is because the rock falls back to where it belongs, the Earth. But later, new religious world views arise along with the reformation, and God is not seen as interventionist any more but as the one who sets Nature’s Laws. The falling stone is now seen as a proof of gravity. Furthermore, scientists now claim that matter is made of (dead) atoms. This shift from the idea of ‘Mother Earth’ to the view that the ‘Earth is dead’, which therefore allows for the exploitation of Earth, in particular mining, was exactly at the time capitalism gradually replaced feudalism. “Is this a coincidence?”, asks the teacher theatrically. Then he shows us a documentary film which makes the same link between the appearance of Newton’s laws and mining. As one of my fellow PGCE students says during the break, the most interesting feature of this film is the suggestive effect produced by seeing a man using with strength an electric drill machine in a mine just after having been shown an artistic representation of ‘Mother Earth’ as a sensual and lascivious woman…

The teacher moves to Kuhn’s (1922–1996) theory that science progresses from one paradigm (i.e. a set of laws and theories commonly accepted by the scientific community) to another. However, while scientific understanding evolves, there is no progress towards ‘the truth’, as truth doesn’t exist. According to Kuhn, there is no such thing as objective reality. This is an instrumentalist view of science according to which theories depend upon the scientists producing the theory. All knowledge and theories are believed to be value-laden. To illustrate this point, the teacher comes back to Newton’s laws which ‘incidentally’ came at the advent of capitalism — “Is this a coincidence?” — but would be proven to be wrong at the era of quantum mechanics (new paradigm). He further gives examples of phrenology (where shape and size of the cranium are correlated to mental abilities), which was used to justify imperialism and keeping women at home, and of sociobiology, which claims that some behaviours depend on genes, with the conclusion that sex roles are at least partially fixed and so that gender equality is not possible. He goes on to ask “Why was quantum mechanics developed in Germany? Is this a coincidence?” [Here I must admit that until today I don’t understand what the allusion was], and “Why has the world wide web been invented? For surveillance? Or to flatten out organisations through sharing of information as it was claimed?” He ends the lesson by telling us that over 50% of scientific research is done for military purposes.

We leave the classroom in the same mindset as after a Michael Moore documentary. I feel uncomfortable. Clearly, this lesson was not a neutral introduction about the philosophy of science, and the teacher had a committed stance on the subject. But unlike the documentaries which introduced a new subject, here the lesson was on science, something I have studied and worked in for years. I am not an expert in the philosophy of science. However, I have read ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ by Kuhn and ‘Against Method’ by Feyerabend, as some philosopher friends of mine recommended them to me, yet I haven’t read them entirely. Firstly, I am surprised by this dubious link between mining and Newton’s laws. Mining has existed long before the 17th century, even in Europe! I find it is quite rough an account of physics to claim that Newton’s laws are simply wrong, and quantum mechanics would be the new paradigm. I understand it is a convenient way to present the development of quantum mechanics as completely incompatible with Newton’s mechanics, if one wants to support Kuhn’s principle of a succession of ‘incommensurate’ paradigms (meaning the new paradigm has no common measure with the previous one). However, I would see the matter in a quite different manner and would simply say that the domain of validity of Newton’s laws has been restricted. Newton’s laws have been shown to be not valid for objects below a certain size (then quantum mechanics is to be used) or having a speed above a certain value (then relativistic mechanics applies). So, science progress would rather be synonymous to having new paradigms with greater domains of validity[1]. Aeronautical engineers have not changed the fundamental laws their work is based on, and planes kept flying after quantum mechanics and the relativity theory were invented. So should we really forget about Newton’s laws altogether?

By doing some research on the subject, I came to understand that we have been exposed to still highly controversial issues in philosophy of science, but in a singularly manipulative way, involving inaccurate facts and asking biased questions, such as “do you share Bacon’s view from four centuries ago or Kuhn’s view from 40 years ago?” It is surely very interesting for a scientist to reflect on the nature of science and the scientific method, but I question the nature of our teacher’s message. He presented science almost as a pure social construct with scientists being puppets of some villains. My mind goes to the writing on my mug from the Institute of Physics ‘Love physics? Pass on the passion. Teach!’, but after this session I feel I have chosen the wrong subject since physics is just awful — not for its abstract concepts or equations, but for how it is done and used! Everything to the bin! Burn the labs! Ban science from school! Free the humanity from this nuisance!

It was not explicitly said during the lesson, but in one document that the teacher had uploaded on the university’s website, it is said that if the relativist view of science is accepted, teaching would have to be made in such a way that pupils could understand that science is a cultural activity instead of telling the history of science as a series of great breakthroughs, revolutions and moments of genius from scientific heroes… So, I realise the point is not as much as which philosophical view of science we might have, but to decide what our role as science teacher is: to teach the presently accepted scientific knowledge or to teach that science is made by human beings who make mistakes, are involved like any other people in power struggles, can experience conflicted interests, whose work depends on political decisions… Is it however possible to teach both at the same time? Is it realistic to expect from pupils that they understand e.g. how the atom theory developed, while the concept of electrons, protons and neutrons, or even electric charge, is already challenging? Should the controversial aspects of the use of scientific results be discussed in science lessons or elsewhere? Isn’t there a danger that students come to believe that ‘theories change all the time’ (like one of my young colleagues at university said once!) and so don’t see the point learning theories which will be proven wrong in the future? Why should they learn Newton’s laws if they are wrong, as our university teacher claimed? Should we then accept in science lessons a student saying “I don’t believe in Archimedes’ principle. That’s my opinion!”?

These are all questions I would have liked to discuss.

[1] See Nikkhah Shirazi, A. (2008). Instrumentalism vs. Realism and Social Construction. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/79042