Mr Blottisham arrived at the Senior Common Room in a state of unusual satisfaction.
“I have been thinking about our last discussion,” he announced. “I believe I have found the flaw.”
Professor Quillibrace put down his newspaper.
“How gratifying. Do sit down before it escapes you.”
“The trouble with your ecological metaphor is that it makes scientific knowledge sound suspiciously tentative. Ideas compete, explanations flourish, possibilities reorganise themselves. One might suppose that scientists spend their entire careers rearranging the furniture of their minds.”
“Some do,” said Miss Elowen Stray. “But I take it you have a more decisive account.”
“Certainly. Science discovers things. It observes phenomena, constructs explanations, tests them, and eventually establishes what exists. Dark matter, for example, explains gravitational effects that visible matter cannot account for. Why should we hesitate to call it real?”
Quillibrace folded his newspaper.
“A reasonable question. What, precisely, do you mean by explains?”
Blottisham looked affronted.
“Accounts for the observations.”
“And if two different explanations account for the same observations?”
“Then we test them.”
“And if both survive the tests?”
“We conduct further tests.”
“And if the tests cannot yet distinguish them?”
Blottisham considered this an unnecessary complication.
“Then we wait for better evidence.”
“Excellent,” said Quillibrace. “You have just described a situation in which explanatory success does not, by itself, establish which explanation corresponds to what exists.”
“I have described an unfinished investigation.”
“Precisely.”
Elowen intervened.
“I think we should distinguish two questions. One is whether a concept provides a successful explanation. The other is what that success warrants us in believing about the world.”
“And you suppose the second question remains open even when the first has been answered?”
“Sometimes. The degree of uncertainty depends on the case.”
Blottisham reached for the sherry.
“Let us take an example. Nobody has seen an electron in the ordinary sense of seeing a table. Yet I imagine even Professor Quillibrace accepts that electrons exist.”
“I do.”
“Then we agree.”
“On the existence of electrons, certainly. Not necessarily on the proposition that every successful theoretical entity enjoys the same evidential standing.”
Blottisham paused.
“Are you suggesting that electrons and dark matter are not comparable?”
“I am suggesting that the evidence for different entities may differ in scope, precision and independence. The fact that science can infer something from its effects does not mean every inference from effects is equally well established.”
Elowen nodded.
“An entity need not be directly visible to be real. But neither does the success of a concept automatically establish every claim made about its referent. We must ask what the evidence supports in each case.”
Blottisham looked from one to the other.
“You are both making a perfectly ordinary point sound remarkably difficult.”
“Then perhaps,” said Quillibrace, “we should examine why it is so easily overlooked.”
He took a sheet of paper from his pocket.
“Imagine an astronomer proposing an unknown form of matter to explain a discrepancy between observed stellar motions and the gravitational effects expected from visible matter. At first, dark matter is one possible explanation among several. What changes when the hypothesis proves successful?”
“It becomes the preferred explanation,” said Blottisham.
“And what follows?”
“Further research. Better models. Predictions. Experiments to identify the matter.”
“Quite so. The concept begins to organise scientific activity. It determines which questions are asked, which experiments are designed and which mathematical models are developed.”
“Because it is useful,” Blottisham replied.
“Because it is useful,” Elowen agreed. “But usefulness has consequences. As the concept becomes embedded in more and more scientific practices, it begins to function less like a tentative proposal and more like an established feature of the world being investigated.”
“I fail to see the problem. If a concept is sufficiently successful, that is exactly what we should expect.”
“It may be,” said Elowen. “But notice the transition. Scientists begin by saying that a model requires dark matter. Later, they may speak of dark matter clustering, interacting and shaping cosmic evolution. The language shifts from what the model proposes to what the entity does.”
“And if the model is correct,” Blottisham said, “the language is entirely appropriate.”
“Yes. The question is whether the evidence warrants the shift, and to what extent.”
Quillibrace leaned back.
“The danger is not that scientific language becomes realistic. It is that the transition may become invisible. A conclusion that was once open to question can become part of the vocabulary through which subsequent questions are framed.”
Blottisham frowned.
“Surely scientists know the difference between a hypothesis and an established fact.”
“Of course,” said Elowen. “But the boundary is not always a simple line. Different aspects of a concept can acquire different degrees of support. We may have strong evidence for the gravitational effects attributed to dark matter while remaining uncertain about its physical nature.”
“Then we know what it does, but not what it is.”
“Sometimes that is a useful first approximation,” said Quillibrace. “Though even what it does is established through particular models and measurements.”
Blottisham sighed.
“You make certainty sound like a bureaucratic process.”
“Only because you keep asking for a single certificate,” said Elowen.
She paused, then continued.
“Consider what happens when a concept becomes central to a scientific field. It acquires an ecology of its own. Researchers develop candidate entities, devise experiments, refine mathematical descriptions and investigate unresolved properties. Each development creates new possibilities. The concept becomes productive partly because so much scientific activity now depends on it.”
“An impressive achievement,” Blottisham said.
“Indeed. But the growth of that ecology cannot be treated as independent confirmation of every possibility it contains.”
“Surely more research means more evidence.”
“Sometimes. But a hundred papers exploring related consequences of the same assumption do not necessarily provide a hundred independent reasons to accept that assumption.”
Quillibrace gave an approving nod.
“An important distinction. The size of a research programme and the strength of the evidence supporting its foundational commitments are not the same measure.”
Blottisham looked unconvinced.
“Are you now suggesting that the scientific community can persuade itself that something exists simply by talking about it?”
“Not simply by talking about it,” Elowen replied. “By building practices, expectations and further inferences around a concept. Those practices may be entirely justified. The point is that their development is part of the history of how the concept acquires authority, not an automatic guarantee that every ontological commitment associated with it is correct.”
“Then what would satisfy you?”
“Evidence that discriminates among the relevant possibilities. Independent constraints. Successful predictions. A clear account of which claims have been established and which remain conjectural.”
Blottisham brightened.
“At last! The ordinary methods of science.”
“Exactly,” said Quillibrace. “We are not proposing a substitute for scientific investigation. We are asking how to understand the relationship between its achievements and the ontological conclusions drawn from them.”
There was a short silence.
Then Blottisham said, “I still think you underestimate the force of explanatory success. If a theory explains many independent phenomena, surely the simplest conclusion is that it has discovered something real.”
“Sometimes it is,” said Elowen. “And we should not pretend otherwise. But the strength of the conclusion depends on how well the explanation survives alternatives and how much of its success depends on assumptions that remain untested.”
“So the more successful the theory, the more confidence we may place in it?”
“Generally, yes. But confidence in what, exactly?”
Blottisham opened his mouth.
“The theory?” he said.
“Which parts of it?”
He closed his mouth again.
Quillibrace rose to refill the glasses.
“Miss Stray has made the essential point. Scientific confidence is not necessarily uniform across all the claims bundled together in a successful theory.”
Blottisham watched the professor pour.
“Then you would have us distinguish the observed effects, the explanatory model, the proposed entity and the entity's presumed physical nature.”
“I would,” said Elowen. “And I would ask what evidence supports each relation.”
Blottisham sat quietly for a moment.
“I concede that one might accept the gravitational evidence without knowing the nature of dark matter. But surely the concept cannot remain provisional forever.”
“Why not?” asked Quillibrace.
“Because science must eventually decide what exists.”
“Science must make decisions about what to believe, what to investigate and what assumptions to use. Those decisions can be well warranted without every question being settled.”
“And if the concept is eventually abandoned?”
“Then we shall have learned something about the conditions under which it succeeded, the assumptions that failed, and the alternatives that proved more adequate.”
Blottisham gave a reluctant nod.
“I dislike the idea that a successful concept might one day disappear.”
“Why?” Elowen asked.
“Because it would mean that years of work had been directed towards something that was not there.”
“Not necessarily,” she said. “The work might have identified real phenomena, established reliable relations and produced successful predictions, even if the original account of their cause required revision.”
Quillibrace smiled.
“An explanation can be wrong in some respects without every achievement associated with it becoming worthless.”
Blottisham looked towards the window.
“I suppose that is true. But I still prefer science when it tells us what exists.”
“So do I,” said Elowen. “Provided we also ask what entitles us to say so.”
The clock struck five.
Blottisham stood, restored to some of his former confidence.
“Very well. I shall grant that scientific concepts acquire their authority through a history of investigation. I shall grant that their ontological status may remain uncertain in some respects. But I refuse to believe that the world itself is merely a product of our conceptual ecology.”
“Nor do we ask you to,” said Quillibrace.
Elowen smiled.
“The world is not whatever our concepts permit us to imagine. But what we can investigate and explain depends partly on the concepts through which we encounter it.”
Blottisham adjusted his jacket.
“Then I look forward to the next discussion. I presume it concerns what happens when reality refuses to cooperate with our concepts.”
“An excellent formulation,” said Quillibrace.
“Thank you.”
“Though we shall have to distinguish reality's refusal from our failure to understand what it is doing.”
Blottisham sighed.
“Must every discussion end with another distinction?”
“Only the productive ones,” said Elowen.
As Blottisham departed, Quillibrace collected the papers.
“He has made progress.”
“He has accepted that a successful concept does not settle every question about its referent,” said Elowen. “But he still assumes that difficulties can always be resolved by improving the explanation.”
“And sometimes they can.”
“Yes. But what happens when the difficulty lies in the relations that make our available explanations possible?”
Quillibrace glanced towards the door.
“Then Mr Blottisham may have to reconsider what he means by an answer.”
Elowen smiled.
“That should keep him occupied until next week.”
No comments:
Post a Comment