Perspectives
2026-05-07
“Science tells us what is actually out there in the world — there seems to be no space for different perspectives.”
Today we test that claim.
Yes — in almost every field:
Science is not perspective-free. The question is: is that a problem?
Unity of Science
One world → one true theory
Multiple perspectives = unfinished business
We haven’t found the truth yet.
Fits the notebook metaphor
Pluralism
Many maps of one territory
Different theories serve different purposes
A patchwork quilt is fine — and more honest about how science actually works.
Fits the map metaphor
Do you feel uncomfortable with perspectives in science? You may yourself have a perspective: the unity of science perspective.
Is this two perspectives — or one complex perspective with two aspects?
Karl Popper (1902–1994): the job of science is to falsify hypotheses, not confirm them.
The black swan problem:
No matter how many white swans you have seen, one black swan proves “all swans are white” is wrong.
We can never prove a universal statement — but we can disprove it.
Therefore: science should try to prove hypotheses wrong.
| H₀ (null hypothesis) | No relationship exists between variables |
| H₁ (experimental hypothesis) | A relationship exists |
Scientists falsify H₀ — they don’t try to confirm H₁.
1. Self-refutation: Popper’s falsifiability principle is itself not falsifiable. By its own standards, it is meaningless.
2. The Duhem-Quine thesis (auxiliary hypotheses): You can’t test a hypothesis alone. Every experiment also tests the equipment, the theory behind the equipment, and dozens of other assumptions. If the result is wrong → maybe the hypothesis is wrong. Or maybe the equipment is broken. “The equipment didn’t work” — a classic way to protect a hypothesis.
3. Stubborn theorists: Popper thought scientists should drop theories in the face of contrary evidence. But they don’t — and shouldn’t. Continental drift theory: evidence was overwhelming by 1905 → accepted only in 1960.
When noble gases were discovered in the 1890s, they didn’t fit Mendeleev’s table.
Did scientists reject the periodic table?
No. They worked on it and added a new column six years later.
In 1913, Henry Moseley solved the remaining anomalies by ordering elements by atomic number rather than atomic weight.
Anomalies don’t immediately overthrow theories. They drive science forward — and that is what makes it human.
Discussion Question 1 (pairs · 90 sec)
“Popper says scientists should immediately abandon a hypothesis when evidence falsifies it.
Is this good advice? What would be lost if scientists always followed it?”
Scientific knowledge is a hodge-podge:
“Let’s face it — scientific knowledge is messy. And this messiness is challenging. And that is what makes it interesting — and human.”
Three layers of challenge: observations, testing hypotheses, and deeper methodology.
OPERA experiment, 2011 (CERN): Neutrinos sent from CERN to Gran Sasso appeared to travel faster than light — physically impossible.
Cause: a faulty fibre-optic cable.
Even a billion-euro particle physics experiment is not immune to a loose connection.
fMRI brain imaging:
Just because something is technologically possible doesn’t mean it’s the right investigation.
Technology can lead the science rather than serve it.
Two deeper problems:
1. Selectivity: We always observe something specific, guided by theory. But to know which variables to observe, we need to know which are relevant — which requires knowing the answer we’re looking for. A circular situation.
2. Theory-laden observation (“seeing-as”): All observations are structured by prior concepts.
“There is no such thing as immaculate perception.” — Nietzsche
One mistranslated word → decades of distorted observations by trained astronomers.
Expectations are powerful enough to shape what expert scientists actually see.
Confirmation bias: tendency to notice and emphasise evidence that confirms a hypothesis, and downplay evidence that disconfirms it.
René Blondlot (1903, France): claimed to discover a new form of radiation — N-rays — as differences in spark brightness.
Others tried to replicate → failed.
Professor Robert Wood (sent by /Nature/ to investigate): - Secretly removed an aluminium prism central to the experiment - Blondlot continued to report seeing the N-ray effects
Blondlot’s observations were a product of confirmation bias and expectation — not a real physical phenomenon.
Discussion Question 2 (pairs · 90 sec)
“If all observation is theory-laden and subject to confirmation bias, does this undermine the objectivity of science?
Or does the process of peer review and replication rescue it?”
Given that science is a social activity, different social groups produce different perspectives.
Key question: Who has historically been allowed to participate — and what knowledge might we have missed?
In the 17th-century Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, science was overwhelmingly conducted by:
Not because women had nothing to contribute — but because they were systematically excluded.
Women were excluded from science through:
The stereotype threat: the long-standing narrative that girls and women are not as good at science as men.
This narration is now changing — but the structural barriers took centuries to dismantle and their effects persist.
Ada Lovelace (1815–1852)
First computer programmer.
Designed an algorithm for Babbage’s Analytical Engine — a computer not yet built.
Foresaw computers used for letters, everyday tasks — 100 years before it happened.
The language ADA is named after her.
Marie Skłodowska-Curie (1867–1934)
Only person to win Nobel Prizes in two different sciences (Physics 1903; Chemistry 1911).
Initially omitted from the 1903 Nobel nomination.
First woman to teach at the Sorbonne.
Her daughter Irène also won a Nobel Prize.
Mae C. Jemison (b. 1956)
First African-American woman in space (1992).
Chemical engineering degree (Stanford); medical degree (Cornell).
Served with Peace Corps before joining NASA.
Founded The Jemison Group; professor at Dartmouth and Cornell.
Katie Bouman (b. 1989)
Computer scientist.
Her algorithm produced the first ever image of a supermassive black hole (galaxy M87, 2019).
2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Emmanuelle Charpentier & Jennifer Doudna — CRISPR-Cas9.
It is not just women. Consistently underrepresented in STEM:
Most major research centres: Europe, US, China, Japan.
What is the role of political power in the pursuit of knowledge?
If the people who do science are not representative of humanity — is the knowledge they produce fully representative of humanity’s questions?
Induction: drawing general conclusions from particular cases.
This is the fundamental reasoning tool behind all scientific laws.
The problem:
When you add water to anhydrous copper sulphate, it goes blue.
How many times must you repeat this before it becomes a law of nature?
What if on one trial it stays white?
No matter how many confirming observations you make, a counterexample is always possible.
Many central entities in science cannot be observed — even in principle:
Empiricists / Anti-realists: Only what can be directly observed exists. Quarks, fields, and scientific laws are useful fictions — not real.
Most scientists: Quarks exist — it would be a miracle if quark theory made correct predictions but quarks didn’t exist.
To what extent is science actually empirical — accepting the existence only of things that can be observed?
If science is strictly empirical, quarks, fields, and laws don’t exist.
If science accepts unobservables, it is only loosely empirical.
But then — so are many other areas of knowledge.
Perhaps the strict sense of empiricism is an ideal, not a description. And if that’s right, science is not as unique as it claims to be.
Choose 2–3. Allow 2–3 min per question.
“We have seen that scientific observation is theory-laden, shaped by expectations, and subject to confirmation bias.
Is any scientific claim truly objective? Or is objectivity always a matter of degree?”
Follow-up: If complete objectivity is unachievable, is it still a useful goal? Does aiming at objectivity matter even if we never fully reach it?
“If the history of science has been dominated by men, aristocrats, and wealthy Western institutions, is the content of science itself biased?
Or does the method correct for the perspective of the knowers?”
Follow-up: Think of a scientific question that might have been asked differently — or answered differently — if the research community were more diverse.
“The deeper we look, the more we find that scientific knowledge is: theory-laden, model-dependent, troubled by induction, and full of unobservable entities.
Does this undermine science — or does it reveal something important about the nature of knowledge in general?”
Follow-up: What do other AoKs (history, the arts, the human sciences) share with natural science here? What’s the same? What’s different?
Perspectives exist in science — in theory, method, and interpretation. The question is not whether to eliminate them (impossible) but how to manage them. Peer review, replication, and diverse communities are the tools.
Observation is not innocent — it is shaped by concepts, expectations, and technology. This is a challenge, not a scandal. The scientific community has mechanisms to catch and correct errors — but they are slow and imperfect.
Science is a human activity — conducted by people embedded in societies, cultures, and power structures. Who does science shapes what science asks. The knowledge produced is real and reliable — but its agenda is not value-free.
Write 2–3 sentences — choose one:
Option 1: “Give a real or hypothetical example of confirmation bias in science. What mechanism should correct it — and how long might it take?”
Option 2: “What is the difference between ‘seeing-as’ and ordinary neutral seeing? Give an example from science and one from everyday life.”
Option 3: “Should the under-representation of women and minorities in science concern us for epistemological reasons (not just ethical ones)? Argue a position.”
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Unity of science | One world → one true unified theory all sciences converge on |
| Pluralism | Multiple theories can co-exist; a patchwork quilt is acceptable |
| Falsificationism | Scientists should try to falsify, not confirm, their hypotheses |
| Auxiliary hypothesis | An assumption needed to run an experiment; can absorb a falsification |
| Null hypothesis (H₀) | Hypothesis of no relationship between variables |
| Wave-particle duality | Light exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties depending on the experiment |
| Anomaly | An observation that a theory cannot explain; drives science forward without immediately overthrowing the theory |
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Selectivity of observation | Choosing what to observe before the investigation — cannot be neutral |
| Theory-laden | All observations are structured by prior concepts and theory |
| Seeing-as | Perception is active: we see things as something, not neutrally |
| Observer effect | The act of observing changes the system being observed |
| Probe effect | Contact of measuring device with system changes it |
| Confirmation bias | Tendency to favour evidence that confirms a hypothesis over disconfirming evidence |
| Background assumption | An assumption needed to get an investigation started; can skew the inquiry |
| Problem of induction | No matter how many observations confirm a hypothesis, a counterexample remains possible |
| Unobservables | Theoretical entities that cannot be observed even in principle (e.g., quarks) |
| Empiricist | Thinker who holds that only observable items exist; anti-realist about unobservables |