|
"Scientific facts" Is there
anything special about “facts” as they are produced by science (in the sense
of the ESP as explained in previous contributions on this page), as opposed
to facts collected, presented or asserted outside of science? Are they more
accurate, more reliable, more comprehensive in covering a given portion of
reality, say translation process, translation quality, the translators'
personality, etc.? Sometimes they are, if the same phenomenon has been the
object of scientific enquiry by many scientists for a long time. However,
this is not necessarily the case. Three reasons are given here by way of
illustration: When
scientists start investigating a phenomenon, they often have a theory which
they seek to prove. This may (inter alia)
make them sensitive to some parts of reality and less so to others. Thus, they
may misinterpret reality and “see” facts where other scientists with different
theories would “see” other facts. Another
reason why scientific “facts” are not always reliable is the limited quality
of tools used to collect them, be they physical tools (optical, electronic or
otherwise) or intellectual tools such as observation grids, mathematical
calculation methods, etc. Thirdly,
science is systematic, and may therefore look at specific parts of the
phenomenon under study gradually rather than study it holistically. It may
therefore take a lot of time before it covers all its important facets. In
contrast, non-scientists who are in daily contact with the phenomenon may
have deep intuitive knowledge of the same facets. If so, why
should one look to science to provide facts to explore the world or provide
applications? The one essential advantage of science in this respect appears
in the long term. Scientific facts are produced in compliance (to the best
possible extent) with scientific norms that seek to reduce misperceptions and
to correct errors and distortions through collective efforts, including
criticism. Through this self-correction process, the factual basis collected
and published in the literature eventually becomes increasingly accurate and
reliable, whereas non-scientific facts may remain at the same level of
reliability for a very long time. However, in order for the process to take
its appropriate course, it is important that scientific norms be complied
with.
|
|
|
|