1/ Currently reading Feyerabend’s Against Method and it has some really interesting observations on how science is done, and should be done.
2/ Unlike popular assumption, we don’t observe data first and then formulate theories. Generally, it’s the conviction of a scientist who formulates a new hypothesis and then goes about looking for data.
3/ For example, LIGO was commissioned to search for particles at high energy, and general relativity was fortunate during long before we had the data we now that refutes Newton’s theories.
4/ What happens through this method is that observations and theories are interlinked.
We are building expensive experiments to find dark matter because our theories predict it.
You cannot have a data point independent of theory.
We are building expensive experiments to find dark matter because our theories predict it.
You cannot have a data point independent of theory.
5/ This has a surprising effect: NOBODY looks for data that current theories don’t predict.
The discovery of anamolies in data that cast doubt on existing theories is a chance event, not a systematic search.
The discovery of anamolies in data that cast doubt on existing theories is a chance event, not a systematic search.
6/ This is why Feyerabend emphasises encouragement of plurality and diversity of hypothesis/theories even if they are incompatible with each other or with data.
He says science should look for inspiration even from voodo, Bible and other obviously ‘unscientific’ fields
He says science should look for inspiration even from voodo, Bible and other obviously ‘unscientific’ fields
7/ What I find mind blowing that even theories that don’t match with confirmed experiments should be entertained.
It’s like saying we need theories that contradict long established theories of evolution, motion, gravity, etc.
It’s like saying we need theories that contradict long established theories of evolution, motion, gravity, etc.
8/ This is because the data is interpreted only in context of a theory.
Copernicus’ suggestion that earth moves contradicted data point available with every human: earth doesn’t look to be moving.
Copernicus’ suggestion that earth moves contradicted data point available with every human: earth doesn’t look to be moving.
9/ Galileo didn’t accept this argument initially, until he was forced to interpret data in a different way.
10/ Similarly, confirmations of old theories can be thrown out of the window via a new theory’s reinterpretation of the same data.
E.g. naively speaking, what if universe is not expanding but red shifting of light happens because of a fairy causing it.
E.g. naively speaking, what if universe is not expanding but red shifting of light happens because of a fairy causing it.
11/ The biggest insight: If we limit our search for finding data ONLY through the lens of well established theories, we’d rely on chance only to improve or refute them.
12/ However, if we entertain wildly different theories (even the ones that don’t conform to predictions), we have a better chance of increasing our knowledge.
So, three cheers to all ‘crankpots’ and misunderstood scientists.
So, three cheers to all ‘crankpots’ and misunderstood scientists.
13/ PS: this makes me wonder how much potential for improving our knowledge must be sitting undiscovered on ‘low impact’ journals.
Science makes sudden leaps and most of the times scientists are in confirmation mode (vs searching for disconfirmation)
Science makes sudden leaps and most of the times scientists are in confirmation mode (vs searching for disconfirmation)
