c c
The µTheory-Loading¶ of Facts Why does recognising the theory loading of facts influence the way we view the history of science?
The theory loading facts includes a build up of observations where scientific knowledge is derived. Reasoning from observations often heads to problems in scientific knowledge. When we look at the past scientists who disagreed with the present, it is assumed that it is a result of either their incorrect observations or their lack of observations (Mercer, 2011, p6). However misinterpretations of observations are the key to errors in past science as people can view observations differently.
Implications for doing the history of science The visions of the history of science are complicated matters, as there are many different interpretations of facts. Facts in science can be loaded with beliefs, theories, values and aims. People have different prior knowledge when observing facts in science. Schuster (2010, p2) argues that ³perceptions are shaped not only by what's out in the world, but also by what's in your mind beforehand, by your prior beliefs, your prior knowledge, your prior values and your prior aims. ´ The visual experiences of scientists observing facts in the past can be incorrect as the influence of their expectations can hide what they viewing. These expectations are fuelled by previous experiences and prior knowledge and so the visual perceptions of certain individuals can be different to each other . According to Chalmers (p25) images that we see through our eyes retinas form part of what we see but the inner state of our minds influenced by our cultural upbringing, knowledge and experiences causes individuals to have various interpretations of what is actually seen. These perceptions are shaped by our grids that we have inherited from our culture. The categories set in our grids by belief, theory and language determine the things we see making up our world (Mercer, 2011, p23). As we know there are many different cultures in the world that change throughout time, so it is reasonable to believe that what was seen as an observable fact in science can either still be acknowledged as fact or denied later in the future. When observational facts in past science have been dismissed it means that our grids have been transformed from culture changing. Therefore the kinds of facts that people make out even under the same circumstances, helps explain that different grids made out from shifting, varying c
c c
cultures arranged by beliefs and values can alter the way we view the history of science.
The role of language in the history of science It is interesting that culture can determine various interpretations of what is seen as fact and what is recorded as scientific knowledge. As facts are ³communicable, verbal or symbolic ? ? which may relate back to our perceptions´ (Mercer, 2011, p28) they are also shaped by language. Language throughout history has shaped facts in different ways as language embodies different theories . As culture and its languages seem like many different worlds, the languages from cultures carry different ways of recording scientific findings , which in turn create different facts and theories (Schuster, 2010, p24). Facts are influenced by social constructs which is conveyed through language . In saying that, social constructs or culture in different points of time can alter the outcome of what was considered scientific knowledge. ³Facts are different for different people at different points of time; and different for different individuals and groups at the same time´ (Schuster, 2010, p26). There was all too often a popularity or ignorance over one found theory to another in the history of science, and this was because of the context in which it created and the biases that surrounded it. It is important to keep in mind the biases towards the creation of some theories as reporting observations from the distortions of states of mind, as in ? can ultimately affect what we see as facts.
So the question must be asked ? Why did we follow some scientific theorists back in time and not others? These questions relate to Whig style history¶s negative influences. New theories were often judged by the past standards of what was currently accepted as true and good in science. Meaning it left no room for individual¶s theories that didn¶t fit into their popular beliefs. Frequently these individuals¶ scientific theories were excluded from the history of science and recreated as people who came up with mythological ideas instead of true given facts (Schuster, 2010, p16). ? It was the people who suited the conventions in the current time that they were in. Unfortunately you can see a problem emerging from
c
c c
how we view science in history, the problem is ?
?
? ?
?
Mostly yes, if we can visualise where and how scientific theories fit into historical contexts and also if we can critically examine the theories in an unbiased matter. If we remember that our interpretations of facts are learned through the grids we create from the effects of being part of a culture, we can certainly alter our grids to understand why some scientific theories re main or are ignored. Understanding that science is a historically evolving body of knowledge that is inclined by culture and its expectations, we see how the theory loading of facts can influence the way we view the history of science.
c
c c
References Chalmers, A., W
?, 20-34 µThe Theory Dependence of Observation¶.
Mercer, D 2011, ? ? ? ? . Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong
Schuster, J.A. ? ?!" : chh. 3 &4.
c
