Proof in Science

Theory and Law

I believe in Natural Selection, not because I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups and explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts. Charles Darwin

Don't believe the results of experiments until they're confirmed by theory. Sir Arthur Eddington

Theory Vs Law: https://youtu.be/GyN2RhbhiEU

Progress, but at what price

Should scientific research be subject to ethical constraints,or is the pursuit of all scientific knowledge intrinsically worthwhile?

Western civilisation went through a major cognitive paradigm shift around the 17th Century. Discoveries by Galileo and Newton challenged the prevalent dominant discourse. A new theory of knowledge primarily based on empirical evidence and reason was created. Scientific evidence soon became synonymous with 'ultimate proof' and religious knowledge was challenged by scientific sceptics. This scientific revolution brought about major changes in the way we thought about the world, particularly in the West. Mankind arguably benefited in many ways from this cognitive paradigm shift and with an increased understanding of the world around us, living standards and perhaps even our education generally improved.

Others question the impact of natural sciences exactly from the perspective of other areas of knowledge such as ethics. The possession of scientific knowledge undoubtedly entails ethical responsibility. How far can and should we go in our search for scientific knowledge? What kinds of experiments should we (not) conduct and why? On what basis can we decide that something is called progress? On what basis can we decide it is OK to "redesign nature"?

Some people also question the human limitations in the search for scientific knowledge. We are bound to our human frame in our understanding of the world. Can we trust our human ways of knowing? What can we do to enhance the power of these human tools?

Lesson idea: Ethical "Carte Blanche"

On Ethics and The Natural Sciences

​What if...?

What if natural scientists had an ethical "carte blanche"?

What kind of things would we (want to) research?

​What might we know?

What might be the possible consequences of scientific knowledge acquired through such means?

• Brainstorm the above questions in groups on large sheets of paper/write on tables.

• For each possible consequence of your "ethical carte blanche", think of other subsequent consequences (be creative!)

• Walk around the tables and compare your group's findings with those of others.

Follow-up discussion:

What criteria could we use to decide whether the pursuit and/or possession of scientific knowledge is ethical?

The 2400 year search for Atoms https://youtu.be/xazQRcSCRaY

The Wacky history of cell theory https://youtu.be/4OpBylwH9DU

Reflection: Has the concept "natural sciences" always meant the same thing throughout history?

First living robot https://youtu.be/XLI7VtjgOyk

About Lulu and Nana https://youtu.be/th0vnOmFltc

Scope: a Scientific Theory for Everything

Science and technology revolutionize our lives, but memory, tradition and myth frame our response., Arthur Schlesinger

Science does not tell us how to live

​Leo Tolstoy

With the rapid advancement of knowledge produced by the sciences over the last centuries, people started to explore the boundaries of the latter's scope. Some feel that because of science's successes, virtually everything can and should be explained through the natural sciences. In that respect, science can become a kind of religion, the basic explanation of our human condition and an answer to our moral questions. But are the successes in the field of the natural sciences sufficient to discard knowledge constructed within other areas of knowledge?

Not really, the natural sciences do not offer much guidance in terms of how we ought to live our lives, for example. The natural sciences can explain things in its own neutral language, but there are situations in which this would not be the most appropriate. For example, when a friend of yours gets cancer and you want to have a conversation about his/her feelings. Scientific language is more neutral or distant than the language we use in every day conversation. When your doctor explains the disease in scientific terminology (neoplasms, carcinoma, lymphoma, etc), the knowledge he passes on is correct. But if you want to tap into the emotional core of what the disease is about, this kind of explanation is perhaps quite useless.

In that sense, Stromae's artistic interpretation is much more suitable and powerful. When we define love in scientific terms, we may ignore nuances which artists can grasp, for example. Reducing love to the effects of chemicals. is perhaps a little bit sad. I would truly hope that the love I feel for my children and my husband is not merely a matter of chemicals or "a love potion", as we might call it. Reducing depression to mere biological factors may not be very good at explaining the full extent of this human behaviour. Our human nature is only partly biological. So are we suitable objects for (natural) scientific study? Can we fully explain how our body works in scientific terms? Is illness purely biological? What about mental illness? Where do natural sciences stop and human sciences begin? Human beings are difficult and complex objects of study.

It is important to remember that despite the obvious strengths of the natural sciences as an area in which we create knowledge, the natural sciences may not answer all of life's questions. Are we at risk of reducing the world through our love for the natural science? Is there room for a a holistic approach towards knowledge in a world so heavily influenced by the (largely compartmentalised) scientific method? Or does science have the ability to give us knowledge about more than just the natural world: our origins, what is right or wrong, or even God?

Stromae: Official Music: https://youtu.be/8aJw4chksqM

How Cancer Cells behave: https://youtu.be/BmFEoCFDi-w

Science can teach us everything: https://youtu.be/o6ooV-19NLY