A tight definition of scientific temperament

What is the basis for scientific temperament? It is, in essence, a clarity regarding the very process by which scientific knowledge is generated. In this regard, a fine tuning of understanding is required not merely among the general public, but within the scientific community itself. Let us examine these concepts one by one, dispel the misconceptions, and attain clarity.

What is the primary source of scientific knowledge? The answer most frequently offered is that observation, experience, evidence, and proof are the king of science. i.e., observation is the ‘authoritative’ knowledge. However, this premise requires a much deeper and more thorough analysis. Does science even have anything ‘authoritative’? Let’s see.

How does the assertion that ‘the sun will rise tomorrow’ simply because it has risen every day up until now strike you? Would you consider this a valid scientific theory? This line of reasoning is known as ‘inductivism’. It involves generalizing or extrapolating experiences that recur repeatedly, and accepting such generalizations as scientific theories. In other words, because the sun has consistently risen every day thus far, one posits the idea of ‘the sun rises daily’ itself as a scientific theory. It assumes that the degree to which a phenomenon is repeatedly confirmed in nature corresponds directly to its validity as a scientific truth. However, inductivism is not a source of scientific theories.

There exists a common saying, "Reading from the book of nature". This implies that we are born as blank slates. By perceiving nature through our senses, we ‘read’ and acquire knowledge or the nature writes it in us. This premise is flawed. Let us examine why.

Another common misconception is the belief that the sole objective of scientific theories is to act as a ‘tool or instrument’ to predict the future. This is ‘instrumentalism’. If one were to adopt this view, then the statement ‘the sun rises daily’ would indeed qualify as a scientific theory since it, after all, predict what will occur tomorrow. However, instrumentalism does not constitute genuine science.

In reality, a scientific theory is an ‘explanation.’ It is neither a mere extension of past experiences nor an instrument for predicting the future. The modern scientific theory explaining why the sun rises every day is simply that ‘the Earth rotates.’ This constitutes an ‘explanation’ (we shall examine explanations in greater detail in a separate article). Scientific theories are, fundamentally, explanations of nature. From where do these explanations originate? Indeed, that should be the very source of scientific knowledge.

Scientific knowledge consists, in truth, of conjectures (guesses), boldly proposed speculations, i.e., hypothesis. At one time, anyone who speculated asking, "Does the Earth rotate upon its own axis? Does the Sun merely remain stationary to one side? Is it the Earth that turns toward it each day? Is this what we perceive as the sun rising?" would likely have appeared to be a monumental fool. Yet, that is precisely our current scientific explanation. Thus, the birthplace of scientific knowledge is humanity itself. We are not blank slates; we possess innate expectations and intentions regarding the nature of the world. These are highly ‘fallible’ (prone to error). However, we also possess the inherent capacity to refine and improve them through the processes of thought and experience. This is how ‘explanations’ come into being. The most crucial point in this process is as follows. Any given explanation evolves into a ‘good explanation’ through a continuous cycle of ‘Conjecture, Criticism, and Testing.’ This is the mechanism by which science advances.

A ‘good explanation’ is, essentially, a conjecture that survives the rigorous process of scrutiny, one that remains consistent with, rather than being contradicted by, empirical observations. For instance, Newton’s theory of gravitation began as his own conjecture. While numerous observations aligned with it, certain specific observations appeared to contradict it. Later, such observations were found to align perfectly with Einstein’s conjectures. So, in the context of gravitation, Einstein’s theories emerged as the ‘good explanations.’

In conclusion, the human mind itself is, in reality, the source of scientific knowledge. However, this does not imply that observation and experience are entirely unimportant. Their function is to select the good hypothesis. One could argue that without the data provided by experience, the hypotheses required to explain them would never be though of in first place. For example, a theory to explain the sunrise can be formulated only after one has actually observed it and wanted to explain it. Yet, even this argument is flawed. Let us examine why.

It is a misconception to view observation as the direct acquisition of nature's truths. All data derived from observation are, in the first instance, mediated through theoris. Karl Popper says that all observations are "theory-laden." For example, the image that falls upon our eyes travels through neural pathways to reach the brain. This does not constitute a direct, unadulterated perception of reality. It consists of electrochemical processes perceived within the brain. Nor do we truly experience ‘where’ these processes are occurring. Visual perceptions originate within the brain, yet we perceive them as existing externally. We sense a star at a vast distance. The brain constantly adds an ‘interpretation’ making things as being "up there" or "on a fingertip" or "in the depths". This interpretation is a form of guess, a theory. It would be no exaggeration to describe the brain as a ‘guessing machine’ created by the evolution to enable humans to comprehend the world. As previously noted, hypotheses are inherently ‘fallible’. So, all the observations are likewise ‘fallible’. Optical illusions and magic trics serve as stark demonstrations of just how profoundly flawed are our observations. We can never directly observe the reality. Everything remains merely a conjecture. Let us once again recall that crucial point. Any explanation evolves into a "good explanation" through a continuous process of conjecture, criticism, and testing. The conjectures added by the brain during the act of observation can function in precisely this manner. But it is up to us, through careful effort, to gradually refine them into good expalnations.

The Royal Society of London (established in 1660) can be regarded as the starting place of modern science. Their central motto was ‘Nullius in verba’, meaning, "Do not blindly accept anyone's word". This philosophy tells that true knowledge is acquired through one's own senses. The doctrine that knowledge consists solely of experiences gained through the senses is known as Empiricism. Inductivism is a part of it. Empiricism has historically challenged numerous absurdities. By opposing traditions that blindly accept erroneous conjectures without critical examination due to religion, culture, and authority. It paved the way for the emergence of modern science. However, Empiricism establishes "observation" itself as a new form of authority. The central insight we have obtained from this article is that observation is inherently fallible. It is prone to error. Thus, empiricism is fundamentally flawed. Observation cannot serve as the ultimate authority for knowledge. Indeed, can there truly be such a thing as "authority" in science?

Even today, misinformation continues to circulate. For instance, the false claim that child birth at home is preferable. But we know it is highly risky. Therefore, it remains absolutely essential to constantly communicate to general public that modern medical practitioners, to represent authoritative scientific knowledge. However, for the purpose of advancing science, accepting anyone as the ‘authority within a specific field’ is a problem regardless of how eminent an expert may be. Such an expert is simply someone who possesses greater knowledge, meaning they have committed numerous errors, learned from them, assimilated knowledge derived from the errors of others, and thereby progressed toward a more advanced understanding. Therefore, what he/she says may well represent the finest knowledge currently available to humanity. However, one must not forget that even these assertions remain open to error.

Ultimately, a tight definition of the scientific temper will be to consider ‘fallibilism’ as the philosophy. Theories are fallible and so are the observations since they are theory-laden.  Through the processes of conjecture, criticism, and testing, improvements can be done. It is this mindset alone that can drive science forward.