In Identifying Future-Proof Science (2022)
AbstractIs science getting at the truth? The sceptics – those who spread doubt about science – often employ a simple argument: scientists were sure in the past, and then they ended up being wrong. Such sceptics draw on dramatic quotes from eminent scientists such as Lord Kelvin, who reportedly stated at the turn of the 20th century “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now,” shortly before physics was dramatically transformed. They ask: given the history of science, wouldn’t it be naïve to think that current scientific theories reveal ‘the truth’, and will never be discarded in favour of other theories? Through a combination of historical investigation and philosophical-sociological analysis, Identifying Future-Proof Science defends science against such potentially dangerous scepticism. It is argued that we can confidently identify many scientific claims that are future-proof: they will last forever, so long as science continues. How do we identify future-proof claims? This appears to be a new question for science scholars, and not an unimportant one. It is argued that the best way to identify future-proof science is to avoid any attempt to analyse the relevant first-order scientific evidence, instead focusing purely on second-order evidence. Specifically, a scientific claim is future-proof when the relevant scientific community is large, international, and diverse, and at least 95% of that community would describe the claim as a ‘scientific fact’. In the entire history of science, no claim meeting these criteria has ever been overturned, despite enormous opportunity.
Similar books and articles
Are there logical limits for science?E. M. Zemach - 1987 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):527-532.
Łukasiewicz, Supervaluations and the Future.Greg Restall - 2005 - Logic and Philosophy of Science 3:1-10.
Assertion-level Proof Representation with Under-Specification.Serge Autexier, Christoph Benzmüller, Armin Fiedler, Helmut Horacek & Bao Quoc Vo - 2004 - Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 93:5-23.
Positive evidence in science and technology.Joseph Agassi - 1970 - Philosophy of Science 37 (2):261-270.
The Ways of Hilbert's Axiomatics: Structural and Formal.Wilfried Sieg - 2014 - Perspectives on Science 22 (1):133-157.
PLATO: A Mediator between Text-Editors and Proof Assistance Systems.Wagner Marc, Autexier Serge & Benzmüller Christoph - 2007 - Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 174 (2):87-107.
The Pessimistic Meta-induction: Obsolete Through Scientific Progress?Florian Müller - 2015 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 29 (4):393-412.
Does Proof of Concept Trump All? RRI Dilemmas in Research Practices.Anita Borch & Harald Throne-Holst - 2021 - Science and Engineering Ethics 27 (1):1-21.
Daedalus, or Science and the Future.Icarus, or the Future of Science.Tantalus, or the Future of Man.J. B. S. Haldane, Bertrand Russell & F. C. S. Schiller - 1926 - Journal of Philosophy 23 (1):13-17.
Proof Step Analysis for Proof Tutoring -- A Learning Approach to Granularity.Marvin Schiller, Dominik Dietrich & Christoph Benzmüller - 2008 - Teaching Mathematics and Computer Science 6 (2):325-343.
Bertrand Russell on the justification of induction.W. H. Hay - 1950 - Philosophy of Science 17 (3):266-277.
Concepts of Proof in Mathematics, Philosophy, and Computer Science.Peter Schuster & Dieter Probst (eds.) - 2016 - Boston: De Gruyter.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Knowledge of the Quantum Domain: An Overlap Strategy.James Duncan Fraser & Peter Vickers - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
References found in this work
No references found.