Mahela Maurice

What are the benefits and limitations of obtaining knowledge through science?

Science, and all of the information that has been obtained via science, is grounded on the scientific
method. The scientific method is a systematic procedure by which empirical knowledge is obtained.
The procedure entails: making an observation, forming a hypothesis from this, undergoing
experimentation and then drawing a conclusion and modifying the hypothesis accordingly, creating a
theory.

The first problem with the scientific method lies in its experimentation. The testing of a hypothesis
involves an independent and dependent variable. The independent- and dependent variables are
treatment of the subject and subject of the treatment, respectively. They are also often denoted by
X and Y. From this, we can gather the problem with causation, moreover the “correlation does not
imply causation” principle. Causation has to do with the relationship between causes and effects.
Over the course of repetitive testing, we find ourselves saying “X causes Y” when really, with the
probability that we are turning a blind eye to other variables, we only have justification to say that
“X and Y are constantly successive” or “there is a probability that X causes Y”.

The idea that “correlation proves causation” is not only a logical fallacy, but manifested in it is
confirmation bias. Confirmation bias, from a broad scope, is the tendency for mankind to favour
information that confirms their preconceived beliefs. Purely in the context of science, it is the
cognitive bias towards confirmation of the hypothesis under study. This goes hand in hand with
Plato, an Ancient Greek rationalist’s position – “empirical knowledge can only ever be mere
opinion”. This is done via manipulating the independent- and dependent variables to yield the
preferred results, as well as interpreting the results as coincidental with the hypothesis. It seems
that the action associated with confirmation bias is the opposite of falsificationism. The execution of
confirmation bias is that with a particular observation, one can confirm a belief, conversely
falsificationism is the logical possibility that with a particular observation, one can falsify a belief.
Ultimately, the concern here is whether one is more probable to yield the truth than the other.
Hypotheses are, by definition, falsifiable predictions, based on the claims of founder, Karl Popper.

Furthermore, the fact that logic, as opposed to experience, is an intrinsic mental faculty is often used
in rebuttal of the validity of empirically obtained knowledge. This is called the problem of induction.
Inductive reasoning is central to empiricism, and deductive reasoning to rationalism. Deductive
reasoning derives an observation from an initial concept, and inductive reasoning derives a concept
from an initial observation. So, induction is only able to acknowledge patterns, which of course have
been proven false in many cases. Whereas intrinsic understanding cannot be falsified or modified; it
is logically necessary.

What are the problems with epistemological relativism?

Epistemological relativism is the view that no belief should be held in superior regard or said to be
closer to the truth than any other belief. The definition of epistemological relativism manifests its
easiest identifiable problem, self-contradiction. If epistemological relativism is the belief that no
belief should be held in superior regard over any other, then those who hold this belief in superior
regard, epistemological relativists, are contradicting the basis of their belief system. Additionally,
 Mahela Maurice

beliefs such as agnosticism and nihilism, asserting that we cannot know anything or that there is
nothing, have this likeness with epistemological relativism. They are contradictory assertions – the
idea that we don’t know anything is asserted as knowledge, and the assertion that there is nothing
in itself is a something.

The other essential problem with epistemological relativism is the almost irrefutable absurdity in
categorising some two propositions as equally plausible or equally valid. A proposition is founded on
nature- and nurture-related factors, emphasising that we each experience and perceive the world
differently, hence different and opposing propositions. However, the distinction between beliefs
regarded as ridiculous and legitimate is that the latter is founded on universally accepted methods,
such as the scientific method, while the former typically is not. For instance, Person A says that a
glass of hot water will eventually reach room temperature because of the second law of
thermodynamics. This is the tested, universal tendency for the quality of nature to diminish in order
to cohere with the surrounding environment. On the contrary, Person B says that it will evaporate
completely on the grounds that he had a dream, which he believes is a foretelling, that all entities of
water were vaporising and transferring to a cloud-laden sky. It seems quite nearly irrefutably absurd
to categorise he two propositions as equally plausible.

However, the idea that scientifically or systematically grounded beliefs are most plausible is
congruent with modernism, the frameworks of which have been proven unreliable on many an
occasion. Take Salvador Dali’s “The Persistence of Memory”, a symbolic representation that space
and time are relative rather than absolute concepts. The melting clocks represent “the collapse of
[the postmodernist’s] notions of a fixed cosmic order”, which in turn conveys that science cannot
yield the absolute truth. Therefore, because epistemological relativism is congruent with the idea
that science is not the absolute truth, it is congruent with the idea that the logical consistency of
what has happened in the past will not necessarily yield the truth.

Also, epistemological relativism is in favour of the semantic truth regarding ‘knowledge’. When we
think of disciplines that claim, by definition, to obtain knowledge, what is ‘knowledge’? To ‘know’ is
to be absolutely certain about something. A synthetic a priori (an extension of inherent meaning) of
absolute truth is to have legitimately answered all the potential questions that can be raised
regarding the topic, and the topic is still, to some degree vague if any of these questions have been
left unanswered. This is the embracement of falsificationism, simultaneously doing away with
confirmation bias. It is, of course, difficult to conceive that all the potential questions equal to a finite
number. With the presumption that the questions are infinite, we gather that all topics are, to
mankind, eternally vague. From acknowledging this, we can see that there is a degree of faith
entailed in everything that we claim to ‘know’ and so should be called ‘belief’.

How does confirmation bias affect a person’s beliefs?

In the broader sense, confirmation bias is the human inclination to favour evidence that coincides
with one’s preconceived beliefs. When narrowed down to the context of science, it is the bias
towards confirmation of the hypothesis under study. So, while Karl Popper, founder of falsifiability,
defined hypotheses as ‘falsifiable predictions’, it is by the intrinsic subjectivity of man who created
and conducts science that this is not in all circumstances abided by. This is one of the things that
 Mahela Maurice

constitute the problem of induction. The Europeans, for instance, before coming to Australia had
recognised swans to be white, by biological definition. On seeing a bird that was in every respect a
swan other than the fact that it was black, the definition had to be expanded, the hypothesis
falsified and the theory adjusted. From this happening, among many others, we can see that
confirmation bias is the central reason for why the grounds of science are being continually altered.
We have not yet inquired whether purple swans exist. Thus, the definition still retains some degree
of vagueness and always will because of the infinite array of unanswered questions that our intrinsic
subjectivity will not allow us to address sufficiently.

Confirmation bias and falsificationism seem to oppose each other. Hindered by confirmation bias,
we believe that with a particular observation, we can confirm a hypothesis as accurate. Conversely,
the idea behind falsificationism is that with a particular observation, we can falsify a hypothesis.
Ultimately, in spite of innate subjectivity, we must base reliability on which method is more
proximate to objective truth.

What impact does our subjectivity have on our ability to obtain objective truth?

Objective truth is eternally out of the reach of mankind, because of intrinsic, ineliminable
subjectivity. That is not to say objective truth does not exist; this we do not know. Man’s subjectivity
is the obstruction from objective truth. Man creates and conducts science, and because man is
inherently subjective, we cannot assert that anything gained from science is absolutely true. The
reasons for science’s inability to give rise to objective truth – confirmation bias, the problem of
induction, the problem of causation and what have you – all have to do with the nature of man.

Inductive reasoning is the process of beginning with an observation, and from observation deriving a
concept. Perception is entailed in observation, and perception is vulnerable to deception. Descartes,
in his first meditation in Meditations on First Philosophy, expressed that because he had known his
senses to deceive him prior (he had perceived a stick, partly underwater, to be bent when it was in
fact straight) he could not completely and utterly trust them from that point. Inattentional blindness
is also a limitation regarding human perception. Inattentional blindness is the human tendency to
overlook stimuli that are plainly exposed in one’s visual field, because of the overload of visual input.
From instances such as these, we understand that it is ridiculous to completely trust our sensory
perception. Perception is necessarily involved in observation, hence the problem of induction.

Additionally, in the induction process, confirmation bias inevitably comes into play. Confirmation
bias is when we cease to inquire something because plausible information that is congruent with our
beliefs has been found. This is precisely why Socrates believed that a proposition should not count
for anything until confronted with relentless scrutiny. The false cause fallacy is linked to confirmation
bias, as we want to use the perceived relationship between variables as a confirmation of a
hypothesis. We want to legitimately say that the former variable causes the latter variable, when
actually the most we can legitimately say is that the former and latter are constantly consecutive.

So, our innate, ineliminable subjectivity is the very essence of why we cannot obtain objective truth.
 Mahela Maurice

“To truly know something, we must experience it.” How would a rationalist refute this?

Inductive proofs, in all cases, can be submitted to falsificationism, whereas deductive proofs cannot
be, as they are grounded on intrinsic knowledge. Induction derives a concept from an observation
and deduction vice versa. It is by perception that we may make observations, and perception is of
course susceptible to deceptive factors, both internal and external. For example, an internal quality
by which perception deceives us is inattentional blindness, the human tendency to overlook stimuli
that are plainly in one’s visual field because of the overload of visual input. With knowledge of this
human quality, among many others, we then resort to the idea that perception is subjective. This is
why inductive proofs are submitted to an infinite array of unanswered questions, hence will never
give us the absolute truth.

Furthermore, there are truths that cannot be falsified because they are, by definition, irrefutable
and cannot be conceived otherwise. These are called analytic a prioris, and they are logical
propositions in which the predicate is entailed in the definition of the subject. ‘Widows are female’,
for instance, is an analytic judgement. The gender expressed in the predicate is, by inherent
meaning, essential to a ‘widow’. Furthermore, one cannot imagine the gender of a widow being
contrary, as this would be incongruent with the definition of a widow. Conversely, synthetic a
posterioris are experiential judgements in which the predicate is an extension of the subject. So, to
say ‘widows are mournful’ would be a synthetic a posteriori, as it can only be grounded on
experience and it is not inherent in the definition of the subject. So, evidenced by these subdivisions,
experientially grounded judgements by no means yield the truth.

Analytic a prioris, such as ‘widows are female’ have also been described by prominent rationalists,
such as Plato, as universally agreed truths. No one in their right mind would refute statements such
as ‘widows are female’ or ‘bachelors are unmarried’ or ‘triangles have three sides’. However,
prominent empiricist, John Locke, claims that it is a leap in logic to conclude that these truths are
innate because they are unanimously agreed on. He says that these universal truths are a result of
mutual experience. So, for instance, the universal understanding that bachelors are unmarried men
is grounded on the fact that virtually everybody has witnessed someone of the sort and has
associated this predicate with the subject.

So, Locke emphasises that we cannot intrinsically understand anything. It is safe to say, however this
does not mean that we don’t have the intrinsic mental faculties that rationalism asserts we have.
Ultimately, our ‘knowledge’ can be divided into two mere categories – rationalism and empiricism.
Denying the existence of one or the other is futile, as they call each other into action; one cannot be
obtained without the presence of the other. Take, for example, the ‘bachelors are unmarried men’
proposition. The experience of successively witnessing bachelors causes one to put two and two
together and conclude that a bachelor is a person with this particular gender and marital status.
From this point, it is a term that denotes this gender and marital status and is then used to identify
with people of the sort. Therefore, experience calls logic into action and vice versa. Psychologist,
Donald Hebb was once asked which of nature and nurture contributed more to personality. In
response, he asked which, out of length and width, contributes more to the area of a rectangle.
Likewise, the feud between empiricists and rationalists is paradoxical, because both are crucial to
knowledge, nonetheless.