Well, it turns out that now I am teaching the scientific method. Science is the search for knowledge (I mean good knowledge!) and for this we use evidence as a tool. The word “evidence” in science does not have the colloquial meaning of “absolute confidence”. On the contrary, evidence is that mechanism that allows us to adjust the probabilities about whether a hypothesis is true or false. Science does not offer absolute truths but rather provisional truths that are constantly reviewed. The scientific method requires methodological skepticism.
-And what are those methods to get closer to the truth? – a smart student asks me -. What are the types of evidence?
“There are many ways to obtain good knowledge,” – I reply -. There is one of them that is fundamental, which is having the humility to base oneself on the work of other researchers. Otherwise, science could not progress. We can’t know everything! This is why a scientific paper includes references to the work of other researchers, on which we base ourselves.
-But didn’t you say a few weeks ago that appealing to authority is an argumentative fallacy? – He rebuked -.
-That’s true. But it is assumed that these works have passed a quality filter in which it is verified that they have been done through good evidence. That’s why I told you that you should cite sources from academic literature, not from Internet blogs.
-Well, but with that explanation we return to the same point, what is a good evidence?
-There are many ways to obtain good knowledge – I answer-. But the best of them are undoubtedly replicable experiments, observations that are replicable over time.
-And what about the Inductive Turkey Problem? – He answers me -.
-You are right, that is a serious problem for inductivism and empiricism. But at least we know that there are other methods of obtaining knowledge such as intuition that are undoubtedly worse and I would say even unscientific.
-You are wrong – said another insidious student -. As Gavin de Becker explains very well in “The gift of fear” we have very valuable intuitions that can save our lives, since they have been selected by evolution. We can define intuition as “knowledge that we don’t know we have” or at least, as “knowledge that we don’t understand well, that we don’t know why it is there, in our heads.” But that doesn’t matter. It is still knowledge and can be very valid.
-You are right too – I accepted-. It seems to me that what is happening here is that what we commonly call “Science” refers to processes that are carried out calmly. We are not talking about how to react in tenths of a second to a danger. Indeed, the intuitive knowledge that can save our lives is very valid knowledge, although in science we hardly talk about it.
-This reminds me of a talk by Richard Dawkins, his famous “Bitches!” in which he explains that the validity of science is demonstrated because airplanes fly, computers compute…
-Exactly. Science deals with knowledge and the test of the usefulness of knowledge is technology. Technology in turn provides tools.
-Tools for what? What is the test of the usefulness of the tools? – The first student attacked me again.
-Like everything, reproduction and survival. The selective pressure filter applies to everything.
-So if ultimately the scientific method produces knowledge whose usefulness is validated through tools whose usefulness is validated through selective pressure, then ultimately science does not pursue truth, but rather reproduction and survival. Like everything.
-Exact. – I had to admit.
-So the scientific method is a farce.
-Correct. – I nervously checked the clock. Class is over!
