Section 1.1: Rethinking Scientific Methodology

From an early age, we are conditioned to view science through a distorted lens. Science is often portrayed as a progressive, cumulative pursuit. What differentiates it from other knowledge forms is the "Scientific Method," which involves expanding observational facts through logical deduction and testing hypotheses. New theories are expected to build upon or replace old ones, continuously approaching an elusive "Truth."

However, this notion is a myth that any thoughtful scientist recognizes. Despite this, researchers often perpetuate this narrative by publishing their work in a sterile, structured format—regardless of how ideas were originally conceived or how research was conducted.

Karl Popper offered significant critiques of conventional views, particularly Logical Positivism, arguing that scientific theories cannot be definitively proven; rather, they can only be falsified. Platt suggested that scientists should adopt a "method of multiple hypotheses," encouraging the exploration of various explanations to test against one another.

Thomas Kuhn challenged the idea of scientific advancement as a linear accumulation of knowledge. He categorized scientific progress into 'normal' and 'revolutionary' science, illustrating how scientists often cling to existing theories even when faced with anomalies, opting instead to create ad hoc explanations.

In this video, Sabine Hossenfelder discusses her skepticism towards the concept of electrons, challenging traditional views in science.

Section 1.2: The Complexity of Scientific Debate

An often-overlooked aspect of scientific discourse is the rhetoric used, which can stray from rationality. Tycho Brahe, who famously wore a brass prosthesis after losing his nose in a duel, utilized this to distract opponents during debates. Galileo employed sarcasm in his writings, making them accessible to a wider audience by publishing in vernacular Italian instead of scholarly Latin.

Following the critiques of Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend, the neopositivist movement has seen a decline. Scientific communities lack consensus on fundamental issues, such as defining what constitutes "Science" or determining valid methods for theory development. Questions remain about whether scientific theories provide an accurate depiction of reality and if it is rational to posit the existence of unobservable entities—like electrons.

A Less Profound, Yet Intriguing Perspective

This pragmatic view is more optimistic than it may appear. The alternative—where science could reach a definitive conclusion—would suggest that all major scientific questions will eventually be resolved, leaving little room for exploration. Under the agnostic view, the pursuit of truth remains open-ended, fostering continual scientific inquiry and vibrant debate.

In the realm of the microscopic, the challenges of verification become apparent. Galileo's observations of celestial bodies can be corroborated through direct experience, yet the subatomic world eludes our senses. This raises questions about how much of our understanding is influenced by our theoretical frameworks.

Rational Empiricism faces its own complexities as well. It’s rare to find a neuroscientist who fully comprehends the workings of the brain or an immunologist who can explain the immune system. The multifaceted interactions among various cells and molecules create a convoluted web of knowledge, often leading to paradoxes.

In light of this, what can we conclude? Science has undeniably made strides; Newtonian mechanics remains applicable despite its inaccuracies. The concept of genes predates the discovery of DNA, proving to have remarkable predictive capabilities. Should we "believe" in these entities? It seems so.

However, the understanding of what defines an electron has evolved significantly over the last century. Electrons are not simply particles or waves; they may be disturbances in a field, possessing charge and spin but lacking mass. Their behavior can defy common sense. The notion of believing in electrons often involves cognitive dissonance, where contradictory ideas coexist. Ultimately, we can only agree that electrons are a useful construct.

You Don’t Really Believe All This, Do You?

Feyerabend was a favorite among my friends majoring in Philosophy at Berkeley. His lectures were engaging and full of humor. When I approached him about one of his books, he expressed embarrassment over "Against Method."

While Feyerabend acknowledged the resilience of Western science, he also emphasized the dangers of dogmatic thinking. It restricts inquiry and stifles creativity. The only enduring principle seems to be falsifiability. Given the sanctimony often found in academia and media, there's a collective hope for a paradigm shift regarding established beliefs—whether about climate change or nutrition.

The Will to Believe

Reflecting back on that faculty meeting, the beliefs of scientists about what is "true" are less consequential than we might assume. The overzealous attitudes of graduate students showcased a desire for validation of established scientific norms.

One pertinent question remains: Is free will an illusion? The deterministic view of the universe might suggest so, yet quantum mechanics opens the door to various interpretations, none of which allow for a clear notion of free will. Personally, I hope that free will persists, as the idea of predestination feels disheartening. For now, I choose to align with the pragmatists. As William James famously stated, "My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."

Feel free to change my mind.

Russell Anderson holds a Ph.D. in Bioengineering and a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of California. His research focuses on learning in biological systems and he has held numerous prestigious positions in scientific and technological organizations.

Questions or comments can be directed to: [email protected]