THE NOTION OF
SCIENTIFIC
EXPLANATION AND
TRUTH.
THE NOTION OF SCIENTIFIC
EXPLANATION.
• The scientific enterprise’s only
preoccupation is to venture into
nature and explain it’s findings to
man, in order to better his lot in life.
• This knowledge is classified, it is not
common to all men, hence the need
for explanation.
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.
• Scientists and those related to them do
their explanation in either of six(6)
ways. By the end of this scrutiny we
would know that which is the best.
• Explanation with reasons: is when a
phenomenon’s occurrence is supported
by so called sequential reasons.
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.
• This type is common among social
scientists.( examples are Marx’s and
Freud’s idea of the concept of
God.excess or scantiness of rain versus
N.E.P.A., etc)
• Functional or Teleological explanation:
is that which dwells or focuses on the
functionality of a thing(tissue, concept,
etc.)
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.
• This explanation focuses on the
usefulness of the thing concerned in the
future. For instance literacy in I.T. could
have been explained like this 30/40
years ago to a C.E.O., in encouraging
him to buy electric typewriters and
computers. Appendix is commonly
operated out of the human body-why?
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.
• Genetic explanation: is employed in
analysing the traits in a particular
specie, family, colony or community.
This is usually based on assumptions
and particular, isolated, handpicked
events that are deemed relevant to the
discussion at hand. This explanation is
therefore based on generalizations and
it’s conclusions are probabilistic.
TYPES OF EXPLANATIONS.
• Reduction model of explanation: is
when an unusual situation is
explained away and make the
abnormal appear normal. E. g when
a person refuses to ride in a vehicle
and chooses to trek to Sango on foot.
The reason? He has had an accident
previously.
TYPES OF EXPLANATIONS.
• Deductive model of explanation: insists
that scientific analysis must meet some
conditions1. It must make reference to existing
general laws,
2. There must be a stated empirical
hypothesis about the natural order.
3. The hypothesis must be in
consonance with previous findings.
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.
4. Based on the above, inference or
conclusions can be drawn. The
problem with this type of
explanation is that it explains the
sequence of knowledge acquisition
but gives no room for questions or
argument. Neither does it give new/
added knowledge.
•EXPLANATION FORMS.
• Inductive explanation: is that which
does not need make reference to
existing laws about the issue under
discussion, neither is there need for
previously formulated hypothesis. This
explanation allows new and novel
discoveries to be aired. The only snag
on this is that it’s findings are
probabilistic, cannot be depended on.
FORMALIST & CONTEXTUALIST
THEORIES OF EXPLANATION.
• The bone of contention here is how are
scientific theories and their predictive
powers presented so that non-scientists
can benefit alike.
• Formalist’s explanation: asks if there are
universal.
• It further inquires if a logical form that
scientific findings can fit into.
FORMALIST, CONTEXTUALIST.
• The formalists subscribe to the need for a
logical framework into which a scientific
explanation must fit into.
The
contextualists
prefer that a scientific
explanation satisfy all linguistic and
grammatical structures. This is so that all
who access such a document can readily
understand it when read-knowledge is to fill
the blanks that are in the reader’s life.
DOES SCIENCE REALLY EXPLAIN?
• The concern of science is with nature.
But scientific hypothesis, theories and
laws are solely concerned with the
‘’how’’ of nature and not the ‘’why’’ of
nature.
• As much as science is in search of truth,
it has not been able to arrive at
absolute truths, changing discoveries.
SCIENCE/ EXPLANATION.
• Scientific explanations cover the
interrelationship between specie in
terms of character traits, blood
group, genotype, among others.
THE NOTION OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
• Truth as held by science is knowledge
that is verifiable and agreed on by all.
• Truth is not a personal formulation but
a public and objectively accepted body
of information.
• Truth for the scientist is about naturethe visible, not the invisible.
SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
• Scientific knowledge though public may
begin as a private experience.( e.g.
Newton’s gravitational law started as an
observation and puzzle.) This is then made
known to others of like minds, who would
subject same to logical and empirical tests.
• If confirmed it is accepted as TENTATIVE
TRUTH.
• This increases scientific knowledge however
ASCERTAINIG SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
• Scientists and thinkers have arrived at
some ways by which knowledge
acquired can be tagged truth. These are
the they:
• Correspondence Test: is common to
Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore in
contemporary days although Aristotle
used it in time past to test truth.
CORRESPONDENCE TEST.
• This theory states that a theory,
proposition or idea is truth if it
corresponds to reality- an empirical
state or situation. E.g. the claim that
a ghost is manipulating your
computer becomes a truth when
there is a corresponding evidence.
COHERENCE TEST.
• Coherence Test: as held by Bradley,
Spinoza, Leibnitz is more in use in the
sphere of pure mathematics. It states
that a statement, theory or
proposition is truth if and only if it
agrees with other statements or
theories previously in existence or
accepted in that area of knowledge.
PRAGMATIST TEST.
• This is a movement associated with
America, started by C.S. Peirce. This test
approves a theory, proposition or idea
as truth if it has cash value, if it is
beneficial to man, if it has positive
consequence on man. These say no
public fund be used for a research that
will rest in peace on a shelf.
THE TRUTH TEST.
• Performative Test: advocated by P.F.
Strawson states that a truth is that
theory, proposition or statement that
can be performed or acted out.
• There has arisen a lot of controversy
about the ‘’real’’ test for scientific truth,
where then is the actual truth that
science claims to present to man?
DEFINING SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
• In defining truth, some schools of
thought have emerged attempting to
proffer concise definition system.
• Verificationism: is the standpoint of
the vienna circle, also called logical
positivism.
DEFINING SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
• The verifiability principle states that
a proposition, postulate, law,
hypothesis is meaningful and truth if
it can be verified or experienced
empirically.
DEFINING SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
• Falsificationism
and
relative
verisimilitude: states that there is no
objective and true knowledge. No
matter the corroborations, acquired
knowledge is only near the truth, not
the absolute truth. Truth is like a
shadow that cannot be captured.
TRUTH, IT’S DEFINITION IN SCIENCE.
• Individualism and objectivism test:
states that truth is discovered
gradually and painstakingly. It will
keep growing in content until it will
be beyond doubt. Truth they say is
beyond the individual, beyond
subjective and private interpretation.
SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
• Scientific Truth is that which is
uncovered from nature through
rigorous findings and tests. The goal
of scientific enterprise is said to be
concerned with acquisition of
objective truth.