Theftz22
Smash Lord
Two Presuppositions of Science
1. The Soundness of Induction
What is the presupposition?
Induction in science can be described as the generalization of observations and data collected in the past to a general theory or law applied in the present and into the future. Because empirical investigation can only observe what has been rather than what will be in the future, all attempts to make general theories or laws about the universe as it is and as it will be must assume that the future will resemble the past. Without this assumption, science cannot make general theories and laws that continuously apply to the universe and so it has no predictive power and can make no statements regarding the future.
Why must it be presupposed rather than proven?
You cannot scientifically prove that the past will resemble the future. In order to prove this empirically, you would need to have empirical access to the future. However we do not have empirical access to the future. At some point the future becomes the present, at which time it is empirically accessible, but the future with respect to that present time is still not empirically accessible. So at every given time, the future is still not empirically accessible. This proves that science alone cannot scientifically justify this presupposition.
2. The Reliability of our Cognitive Faculties
What is the presupposition?
By reliability of our cognitive faculties, I mean that our sensory experience is giving us an accurate, objective representation of reality as it actually is. In order for scientific, empirical investigations to be giving us any information as to the universe and reality as it actually is, our sensory data must not be flawed or illusory but instead be actually representing the universe as it actually is. If our cognitive faculties are not doing this, then all of scientific discovery is false with respect to reality as it actually is. For example, it is possible that you are a brain in a vat being stimulated to experience all of the things that you are experiencing right now. If you are a brain in a vat, then all empirical investigations of this fake reality are giving you false data as to how reality actually is. So for science to be giving us accurate information, it must assume that all such possible situations are false, i.e. it must assume that our cognitive faculties are reliable.
Why must it be presupposed rather than proven?
This one should be obvious. Any empirical attempts to prove that our cognitive faculties are reliable must already presuppose that they are reliable. For if they are not, then that empirical attempt is giving false data. Any empirical investigations that attempt to seek truth about reality as it actually is already assume that our empirical investigations reveal actual truth. Put simply, you cannot scientifically prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
First-Order Discipline Step
By first-order discipline I simply mean some discipline that cannot justify its own presuppositions. Thus, the two above presuppositions of science that cannot themselves be scientifically proven show that science is a first-order discipline.
The Epistemic Step
I want to defend the contention that it is irrational to accept something without justification unless it is a properly basic belief. By properly basic belief I mean something that is not inferred from any more fundamental beliefs but forms the foundation of your noetic structure. You can only deny this premise on pain of irrationality. If something can be accepted rationally without justification or being properly basic, then everyone is rationally allowed to accept anything and everything. Among those beliefs for example is the belief that the whole enterprise of science is false. So if you deny this premise, then you must concede that everyone is rationally warranted in believing that science is false, and you would have no right to say that anyone is irrational about anything. To deny this premise therefore is self-defeating.
What follows
The conclusion is that in order for science to be rationally acceptable, some use of philosophy must be invoked. Either the soundness of induction and the reliability of our cognitive faculties would have to be proved in a philosophical argument, or a philosophical epistemology allowing them to be properly-basic beliefs would have to be adopted. Therefore, in order to be rationally acceptable, science needs philosophy.
1. The Soundness of Induction
What is the presupposition?
Induction in science can be described as the generalization of observations and data collected in the past to a general theory or law applied in the present and into the future. Because empirical investigation can only observe what has been rather than what will be in the future, all attempts to make general theories or laws about the universe as it is and as it will be must assume that the future will resemble the past. Without this assumption, science cannot make general theories and laws that continuously apply to the universe and so it has no predictive power and can make no statements regarding the future.
Why must it be presupposed rather than proven?
You cannot scientifically prove that the past will resemble the future. In order to prove this empirically, you would need to have empirical access to the future. However we do not have empirical access to the future. At some point the future becomes the present, at which time it is empirically accessible, but the future with respect to that present time is still not empirically accessible. So at every given time, the future is still not empirically accessible. This proves that science alone cannot scientifically justify this presupposition.
2. The Reliability of our Cognitive Faculties
What is the presupposition?
By reliability of our cognitive faculties, I mean that our sensory experience is giving us an accurate, objective representation of reality as it actually is. In order for scientific, empirical investigations to be giving us any information as to the universe and reality as it actually is, our sensory data must not be flawed or illusory but instead be actually representing the universe as it actually is. If our cognitive faculties are not doing this, then all of scientific discovery is false with respect to reality as it actually is. For example, it is possible that you are a brain in a vat being stimulated to experience all of the things that you are experiencing right now. If you are a brain in a vat, then all empirical investigations of this fake reality are giving you false data as to how reality actually is. So for science to be giving us accurate information, it must assume that all such possible situations are false, i.e. it must assume that our cognitive faculties are reliable.
Why must it be presupposed rather than proven?
This one should be obvious. Any empirical attempts to prove that our cognitive faculties are reliable must already presuppose that they are reliable. For if they are not, then that empirical attempt is giving false data. Any empirical investigations that attempt to seek truth about reality as it actually is already assume that our empirical investigations reveal actual truth. Put simply, you cannot scientifically prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
First-Order Discipline Step
By first-order discipline I simply mean some discipline that cannot justify its own presuppositions. Thus, the two above presuppositions of science that cannot themselves be scientifically proven show that science is a first-order discipline.
The Epistemic Step
I want to defend the contention that it is irrational to accept something without justification unless it is a properly basic belief. By properly basic belief I mean something that is not inferred from any more fundamental beliefs but forms the foundation of your noetic structure. You can only deny this premise on pain of irrationality. If something can be accepted rationally without justification or being properly basic, then everyone is rationally allowed to accept anything and everything. Among those beliefs for example is the belief that the whole enterprise of science is false. So if you deny this premise, then you must concede that everyone is rationally warranted in believing that science is false, and you would have no right to say that anyone is irrational about anything. To deny this premise therefore is self-defeating.
What follows
The conclusion is that in order for science to be rationally acceptable, some use of philosophy must be invoked. Either the soundness of induction and the reliability of our cognitive faculties would have to be proved in a philosophical argument, or a philosophical epistemology allowing them to be properly-basic beliefs would have to be adopted. Therefore, in order to be rationally acceptable, science needs philosophy.