Why do scientists so vehemently refuse to admit or even accept themselves that science is based at least......

Question

....in some small part on a priori propositional knowledge independent of experience, their holy cow?

I am not ignoring the admittedly larger a posteriori basis of scientific reasoning here. I am asking why they get so defensive when it is suggested that perhaps some small part(s) of their belief systems are based on a priori premises which (at least in the present day) can not be proved or disproved by experimentation.

Actually I do believe that the answers to this question validly reside as much in psychology as they do in philosophy. And there is likely at least a point where the two disciplines are tangential. I posted the question here rather than in the Psychology category because I believed (perhaps erroneously I see now) that philosophers would take the question more seriously than psychologists.

This question is NOT in any way, shape or form an attack on science or scientists. It is more in the nature of a plea for honesty, integrity and humility.

Let me give an example here of a major a priori belief physicists once held that greatly restricted their inquiries and investigations into the nature of the universe. There was a time (not that long ago in the scheme of things) when classical mechanics reigned supreme and all physicists accepted the a priori Euclidean model of a universe having three dimensions of space and one of time. It is true that classical mechanics works well even to this day within the boundary limits IT SETS FOR ITSELF. It took an Einstein, a man of faith and humility as well as of science, to see the basic a priori assumptions of classical mechanics for the limiting chains they actually were and to look beyond these limitations for a more encompassing view of the universe and its functioning. As a result we got relativity, one of the two greatest breakthroughs in physics in the 20th century.

In relativistic contexts time cannot be viewed as separate from the three dimensions of space as it depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light. Ergo spacetime. By combining space and time into a single concept, physicists have greatly simplified much physical theory, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

Now what I am suggesting here is that we have in part Einstein's humility to thank for all these remarkable results. Had he not been willing to admit to the shortcomings inherent in the physics of his early days we would likely now not have relativity and all it has brought in its wake. I am also suggesting that even today there may still be a priori principles residing in our sciences which beg further exploration....But where has all the humility gone?

In his later years Einstein allowed his particular flavor of faith to override his native humility. This is well illustrated by his famous comment in a letter to Max Born, another physicist of his day. Einstein said, "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice with the universe." To which Born promptly replied, "Who are you to tell God what to do?"

Answer 1

Great question. I'm fresh out of a philosophy of science course so let me try to express what I've learned in a nut shell.
Karl Popper - Good science has to be 1) guess work 2) FALSIFIABLE
Thomas Kuhn - Scientists don't do anything useful (thats what engineers do) and they usually know the results they are going to get, they are basically addicted to solving meaningless puzzles.
Rudolf Carnap - With propper language, science can be our greatest asset, everything else is metaphysics = meaningless.


So, there are lots of theories within the philosophy of science. I tend to like Popper, all theories are tenetative and subject to falsification - never fully verified. Everything is contigent.
That said, its still the best process for knowledge known to humanity. If people question that, I would ask how they aquire their knowledge. Metaphysics? Religion? How do they compare to the (fairly) objective analysis of science? Hmmm...

Answer 2

Because you miss the important point, that it is based on a posteriori knowledge. The scientific method is totally based on creating a testable hypothesis and testing it, making observations, and reaching a conclusion. That is ALL a posteriori.

Yes, I know what you are thinking. You think that they have to have some a priori knowledge (hardwired in their brain?) in order to impose any order or meaning on what they do. After all, mathematics is a priori, right? Well, maybe, but when you emphasize the a priori you tend to ignore what IS the important thing which is the scientific method which is totally a posteriori.

Answer 3

I am a scientist and I do not refuse to admit to that, for I am human. This is exactly the thing the scientific method was designed to do; to subsume that a priori propositional knowledge into the scientific process. This is no secret. This is why theory is stringently checked for internal logic and empirical support. Subjected to stringent peer review and is always being refined. You must no know any scientist, because this problem is well known and corrected for among all scientists I know.

Answer 4

Science, by definition, occupies itself with the description of what are considered to be natural processes. While logical methods form the backbone of good scientific reasoning and interpretation of experimental results, the scientists themselves are very poor at philosophical thinking. They delude themselves into thinking that all there is...is what they've figured out (induction can be quite a slippery slope!) In any case, scientists are notoriously resistant to the idea, and especially the feeling, of not being in control of "reality" via rationality. They just don't see how they bias their own reasoning, however, perhaps due to the overeagerness to feel in control. I do realize this answer is minimally philosophical and maximally psychological. Well... I'm a scientist in the behavioral sciences... I admit. But I'm doing what I can to learn philosophy.

Answer 5

Will the sun rise tomorrow ?
Will you have to think about your next breath or heartbeat ?

A priori ? Duh!

Scientist's propose theories ( possible explanations for the material universe ), Then try to find an experiment that will prove or disprove the theory.

Not exactly A priori ? Ya think.

Goodnight young man;
Jonnie

Answer 6

Give an example of an a priori premise (other than those in string theory) which is used as a basis for scientific knowledge. i.e some axiom which is not subject to experimental verification or testing by reason.

Answer 7

Every person in going through life acquires certain biases. It is undeniable. Biases, however, are unrational. Scientists are supposed to be entirely rational, therefore, superhuman. To admit that they are not entirely rational is to admit that they are human. They don't want to admit to that so rational debate is thrown out the window when it comes to core beliefs. This is part of what makes many scientists unwilling to accept even the intelligent design argument.

Answer 8

i am looking at this from the other side of the argument and its a by product of our current society

in the past some of our greatest scientists like isaac newton for example were priests and philosophers, now we refuse to take these people seriously partly because of the established scientific debate

i am a christian (catholic) and find it hard to 'trust' a scientist who could be seen to be pursuing an agenda by refusing to accept the 'possibility' there is a God and throwing it straight out of the window - in the past priests and philosophers had large amounts of time to devote to the study of gods world and its out of their love of god we know so much about the world today

now in a free market society, people that become scientists tend to be on the outskirts of our society rather than at the centre of it and so hold very extreme views rather than sticking to the established scientific doctrine

in effect you get people pushing an agenda, we have been mistaken about our beliefs several times thru out history - for instance the ancient egyptians (and some celtic tribes) knew more about the human body and anatomy (thru mummuification) than many victorian doctors - we seem to forget this at times and refuse to allow ourselves to revise later out of 'pride'

there are many miscarraiges of justice happenning right now as a result of this, dna and fingerprint analysis are not as exact a science as we believe them to be and they are being covered up on a large scale (they are still open to 'interpretation' and cross contamination)

Answer 9

All scientists readily admit that science is based on deduction or hypothesis.

Answer 10

Pride