What is Science 4
(Pattapal Boru)
Verification of “axioms”
Guessing of “axioms” belong to rationalism
and not empiricism in Western Philosophy. The “axioms” are abstract statements,
and one can go on deriving results as in Mathematics using rules of inference,
as Greeks used to do with Euclidean Geometry. However, Science is not
Mathematics, and one is interested in finding out whether the “axioms” have any
sense with respect to observations. We have previously said that “axioms” work
in certain situations, and one should have wondered as to what is meant by
working. This is a tricky question and involves a jump from general to
particular. It is the reverse of induction, and may be called
particularization, for want of a better word.
As “axioms” are
abstract statements, what are deduced from them using rules of inference are
also abstract statements. For example, from Newton’s theory of gravitation one
could derive that an object is attracted towards another object with a certain
acceleration that increases as the distance between them decreases. From this
abstract statement scientists jump to the particular case of an apple falling
to the earth, and say that the apple falls to the earth with increasing
acceleration.
The “axioms” are
not verified by observations. The “axioms” are abstract statements in western
science, while observations are concrete experiences. An “axiom” has to be
first particularized before an observation is made. Thus, what is verified or
falsified is not the “axiom” but a particularization of the “axiom”.
Karl Popper’s
falsification of theories could be valid only for particularizations. However,
even then the “axioms” are not thrown away completely, but are made use of
under special circumstances. This is a consequence of the nature of “axioms”.
As “axioms” are guesses, they can be guessed only as far as certain situations
are concerned, and not to cover the entire ambit of the population.
In western science
the “axioms” are not supposed to be true or false but to work under certain
conditions. Firstly, the “axioms” do not reflect a reality as such and the old
“inference” that if a theory P implies a certain result Q, and if Q is
observed, then P is valid does not hold. It is not obtained from any rule of
inference as such, as the rule of inference states that if P is valid and P
implies Q, then Q is valid. Secondly “axioms” can be guessed only within a
limited range of observations to work.
The so called Scientific Method
Feyerabend said
anything goes in science. However, there is a method in western science, though
that method is used by others as well. It is a guessing game called abduction,
that is practiced by rats in finding out the way to escape from a maze, by the
children in learning a new technique or acquiring new “knowledge”, by search
engines that throw out thousands of guesses, by artificial intelligence people
etc. The difference between the others and the western scientists is that the
guesses of the others are concrete, while the guesses of the western scientists
are abstract. Western doctors in
diagnosing use the method of abduction, though concrete.
In western science
from a limited number of observations of a property of the members of a very
large population, very often infinite, by induction generalized abstract
statements are made. In generalizing it is implicitly assumed that the property
holds for the entire population. Having made generalized statements with
respect to the relevant property, western science looks for explanations for
the property. These explanations are not causes as such but some guesses that
work. The guesses unlike in the case of rats and ordinary people are abstract.
Having guessed working “axioms” a jump is made through particularization to
test whether the “axiom” in a concrete form works in a limited range. No
“axiom” will work in the entire range.
Western Science is
said to be “pattapal boru” since the “theories” are only abstract guesses that
cannot be even imagined, and do not “exist”. Boru or Asath is the opposite of
Aththa or Sath, sath meaning existence. However, it has to be emphasized that
existence does not refer to an objective existence (ontological). In this essay
we have considered Western Science as a set of constructions (guesses) that
attempt to explain an already existing (pre or post Kantian) nature, and not
natures constructed by the observers as described in Nirmanathmaka
Sapekshthavadaya (Constructive Relativism).
