Maxwell, N; (2008) Do We Need a Scientific Revolution? Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry , 8 (3) 95 - 105.
|PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader|
Many see modern science as having serious defects, intellectual, social, moral. Few see this as having anything to do with the philosophy of science. I argue that many diverse ills of modern science are a consequence of the fact that the scientific community has long accepted, and sought to implement, a bad philosophy of science, which I call standard empiricism. This holds that the basic intellectual aim is truth, the basic method being impartial assessment of claims to knowledge with respect to evidence. Standard empiricism is, however, untenable. Furthermore, the attempt to put it into scientific practice has many damaging consequences for science. The scientific community urgently needs to bring about a revolution in both the conception of science, and science itself. It needs to be acknowledged that the actual aims of science make metaphysical, value and political assumptions and are, as a result, deeply problematic. Science needs to try to improve its aims and methods as it proceeds. Standard empiricism needs to be rejected, and the more rigorous philosophy of science of aim-oriented empiricism needs to be adopted and explicitly implemented in scientific practice instead. The outcome would be the emergence of a new kind of science, of greater value in both intellectual and humanitarian terms.
|Title:||Do We Need a Scientific Revolution?|
|Open access status:||An open access version is available from UCL Discovery|
|Keywords:||Science, physics, metaphysics, aims of physics, unified theories, values, politics, science education, rationality, natural philosophy|
|UCL classification:||UCL > School of BEAMS > Faculty of Maths and Physical Sciences > Science and Technology Studies|
View download statistics for this item
Activity - last month
Activity - last 12 months
Archive Staff Only: edit this record