Two Views of
Science
in the document
"Decision regarding complaints against Bjorn Lomborg"
Danish Committees on Scientific
Dishonesty
| Dynamic | Static |
| What makes an investigation scientific is that conforms to appropriate methods; most important is an unbaiased process of error correction. | What makes a body of knowledge scientific is that it satisfies definite structural conditions; most important is that it stands in the appropriate evidential relations to experience. |
| Most evident in ruling: "...the actual core of science is the critical reasoning conducted in the scientific literature, based on documented observations. By means of this process..." "In simplified terms, the process consists of formulating a hypothesis, an outline of a method which lends itself to falsifying or proving the probability of the correctness of the hypothesis, completing the investigation described and publishing the result following a thorough review process." "referees system" "scientific process" "scientific method" |
Present also: "The result of scientific work is knowledge, cognition, in the form of notions assumptions and hypotheses about the 'the correct correlations between things." |
| Strengths Readily accommodates changes in science as part of the process. |
Strengths Affirms that we should believe current science since it has "gotten things right" in some appropriate sense. |
| Weaknesses Disallows as science, bodies of knowledge arrived at by other means (oracles, extraterrestrials and scientific amateurs). Favors journey over destination. Full specification of method eventually relies on knowledge and evaluation of experts (e.g. peer review), presuming a static view. Fallibility of process if it depends upon baised experts giving judgment. Complaints of bias are common among dissident scientists. |
Weaknesses Embarrassed by changes in received science. Favors destination over journey--but can be unsure that the destination is achieved. Must privilege some science as false but "on the right track," which is tacitly relying on a procedural view. Difficulty of providing a sufficiently mechanical account of the nature of good evidential support to free it from the need to call upon expert judgment. |
John D. Norton, August 2009