what is knowledge?

25/01/2017

In this and other articles, I will be exploring exactly what it is that science is delivering. We start with some general points of a rather philosophical nature.

Science is in the business of creating and refining knowledge. It does this according to certain rules (outlined in the previous article) which give us high confidence in the resulting knowledge. Here though, I want to consider what we mean by knowledge. This applies to all knowledge, scientific or otherwise.

Knowledge is a mental phenomenon. A piece of knowledge is a symbolic mental representation of something which one considers to be a fact. Typically, a piece of knowledge is a fact about the ‘external’ world, ie. something outwith the mind itself. (Non-scientific knowledge can also relate to something about one’s own mind, though this article will not deal with this type of knowledge.)

So our knowledge is a symbolic model of the outer world. It is useful because it allows us to predict things. For example, if I am thirsty, I can go and look for water where I ‘know’ that I have found it in the past, rather than just wandering around at random till I die of thirst. So science, in creating models, is indeed creating knowledge.

There are a few things that we need to bear in mind regarding models. The first is that the model is not that which is being modelled. Our knowledge of something is not the same as the thing itself. For example, we can know quite a lot about the sun but that knowledge is a different phenomenon than the sun itself. Hopefully this is obvious!

Secondly, regarding the models which constitute our knowledge, the knowledge is distinct from our direct perception. So, I perceive a bright light in the sky whether or not I have a symbolic knowledge of the sun. Of course in writing about this, we are using words, which are themselves in the domain of symbolic knowledge. Direct perception is awareness of what our senses are detecting, before that awareness is converted into symbolic words and thoughts; before that brightness in the sense of vision is recognised as ‘the sun’.

Note that direct perception has a higher subjective truth value than any knowledge can have. My perception in the moment is irrefutable. How I translate these perceptions into symbolic form and what knowledge I associate with those symbols is something different, the details of which are dependent on my previous conditioning. The scientific method attempts to create knowledge that is common between people. However, even such objective knowledge is intrinsically less truthful, subjectively, than direct perception.

A third point about models is that, necessarily, they ignore irrelevant facts about that which is being modelled. For example, to know how snooker balls bounce off one another, I can ignore the colour of the balls, concentrating instead on the mass and relative positions and velocities of the balls. This focus on what effects behaviour is what makes knowledge useful. However, it means that specific knowledge is only useful for making certain sorts of predictions. If I want to win the snooker game, I certainly do need to take into account the colours of the balls.

This article has highlighted some general points about knowledge, points which will be relevant to later articles concerning scientific knowledge and mystery.

the scientific method

24/01/2017

In this article, we’ll take a look at the method applied by scientists, in general terms. An understanding of this will be needed if we are to grasp what it is that science is providing and what its fundamental limitations are.

Science is concerned with uncovering objective truths about the world (or the whole universe, to be more precise). The key word here is objective. The aim of science is to provide a description of the world which is not dependent upon subjective feelings, opinions or beliefs; a description which can be independently verified by different people as long as they apply the same rigorous scientific approach. In short, science is uncovering truths that we can all agree on, assuming we accept a certain degree of rationality.

Science is looking for patterns in the world. A pattern is something that repeats, or is similar from place to place and from time to time. A scientist might state this by saying that a scientific truth is invariant in space and time. So, for example, a glass of water behaves in pretty much the same way in India as in America. And the behaviour of a glass of water today is much the same as it was yesterday. Of course, if I take the glass of water to Antartica, it will turn into ice, but science can accommodate that within its description of the behaviour of water, in which temperature is a factor, rather than the fact that the water is in Antartica per se.

Having spotted a pattern, the scientific method involves constructing a model that represents the pattern. This model is not a physical model but rather a technical statement of the pattern. The model will typically involve a quantification of the pattern – that is, using measurement to state the pattern in numerical terms, with mathematical associations between the various elements that have been measured.

A general principle in the scientific approach is to apply Occam’s razor. This means that a scientist is looking for the simplest possible model, with the fewest assumptions, which will match the observed phenomena. Of course, there is no particular reason why things should be simple, it’s an aesthetic principle – scientists are more in tune with Zen than with the baroque.

To begin with, a scientific model is a hypothesis. The scientific approach then requires a period of thorough investigation. This typically involves different teams of people trying to replicate the experimental observations. It also involves devising new experiments to check whether the model really does match observations in different situations. Often the model needs to be refined as a result of this research. For example, a scientist might assert that water always turns to vapour at a fixed temperature of 100 Celsius. However, an experiment heating water in a reduced atmospheric pressure, for example on a mountain, will show that it sometimes turns to vapour at a different temperature. In such a case, the model would be modified to include the new factor of pressure.

At some point, when enough experimental evidence has been obtained and no counter-examples have showed up, the hypothesis is accepted and the model is promoted to the status of scientific truth. In some areas of science, this transition involves a strict mathematical hypothesis test, which quantifies what the probability is that the observations are down to chance rather than due to the pattern asserted by the hypothesis. If this probability of chance is small enough, the hypothesis is accepted as true.

The scientific method is also trying to ensure consistency. Effectively, there is an attempt to reconcile all the separate models to ensure they are compatible with one another. At any point in time, there are usually some gaps in this unification. For example, at present, the theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum physics – both stunningly mind-bending and successful theories in the field of physics – have not been reconciled with each other. This does not disqualify the scientific method but rather reminds us that our scientific knowledge is a work in progress.

science and mystery – introduction

23/01/2017

Welcome to this series of written articles in which we will be exploring the scientific method, its limitations and how it relates to mystery. In order to explore this terrain, the articles will have a completely different style to the rest of the material on this website.

At first glance, it might seem that science and mystery are irreconcilable. Science is about determining objective truths about the universe, verifiable by observation and experiment, whilst a mystic asserts that the universe (including everything in it) is essentially a mystical phenomenon – something which cannot be known in the scientific sense. However, these two perspectives can actually co-exist comfortably. More than that, both the scientific and mystical approaches yield irrefutable truths and both perspectives are required if we are to live life to its fullest potential.

The intention with these articles is not to devalue science. The scientific method has proved to be astoundingly useful, enhancing human life in myriad ways and revealing tremendous beauty and intricacy in the natural world. Science is amazing! However, it does have limitations…

The first few articles will look at the scientific method, what it delivers, and its fundamental limitations. After that, some specific questions that are not amenable to the scientific approach will be aired. Later articles might develop into more of a blog commenting on scientific news from the perspective of a mystic.