The problem with natural science with the truth discovered is that an over confident belief on an aspect of knowledge or science, may lead to blindness in other aspects of the same field. Going back to the very start to the discovery of laws and theories in natural science, when unknown factors are first discovered by observation, scientists and experimentalists question the very existence of the unknown factors. People tend to explain and define the behaviors by numerous of hypothesis, and finally conduct experiments to prove them.
Scientific laws and theories are then discovered and set in place by seemingly successful trials of experiments. This is, or at least been believed as, the general trend of the discovery and explanation of natural science that takes place. But when powerful scientific laws are been followed and understood for a long period of time, other elements or methodology that contradicts with the laws will be difficult not to be rejected even before it’s proven to be valid.
When Mikolaj Kopernik first suggested that Earth rotates around the Sun, he offered a whole new perspective of the universe.
However, scientists of the same generation did not accept his point of view because they believed it was the other way around. The fact is, the truth, or so-called knowledge that was solely trustworthy in Kopernik’s period of time is actually a falsely believed lie. The law that was believed back then had support from the credibility of the society. In fact, the solid law was so “concrete” and hard to refute, barely any scientist even tried to cross the barrier (the law) and push it over.
From Kopernik’s incident, we could say that the knowledge provided by natural science cannot easily be independent of its power as a social authority. And using Thomas Kuhn’s language to explain, the paradigm is hard to shift, the pursuit of new knowledge in spite of the “concrete” but still refutable knowledge is difficult. The power and ability to disagree, in this case, will be important for evolution, or revolution of the natural science that is once believed in. This might also be called, the paradigm shift.
In order to accept abnormality, which cannot be explained by previous laws and theories, disagreement will be essential. Denying the long believed natural science is definitely a way to discover a new path of natural science in the other direction. If Kopernik’s companions would never refute the fact that the Sun rotates around the Earth, then accepting Kopernik’s theory of the solar system is something beyond imagination. In the other hand, disagreement in natural science can also be viewed in different perspectives.
This falsification of knowledge may also be an instrument that ceases relevant knowledge to be discovered. Experiments were made to prove the hypothesis by falsifying the hypothesis, and fortunately, fail to do so. For example, the biological experiment on enzyme, proving them to behave as a catalyst in chemical reactions within the body was conducted in the lab. But to prove the truth about enzyme’s relativity as a type of catalyst that exists in the body, we must try and deny the fact that the enzyme catalysis the reactions.
By doing so, we relatively prove the fact by showing that no falsification will succeed in process. By falsification, the biology theory was proved, but the newly discovered knowledge can also be falsified just as well as it could be proved. The relative occurrence between more volatile chemical reaction and increase in doze of enzyme may be a simple coincident. The catalyzing effect is possibly triggered by a specific molecule that is always attached beside the enzyme. The Earth that rotates around the Sun may be observed from a delicately but mysteriously designed satellite that reflects false image.
Indeed, the relative increase of carbon dioxide (as a green house gas) with the theory of global warming was later proved to be only associated by relativity. Relating to examples above, if disagreement plays a role in every corner of natural science, experiments may no longer have meanings to prove. Indeed, it is impossible to prove knowledge that has yet been obtained, because there’s always another point of view to refute what the experiment has proved or yet discovered. And like how the paradigm shift may cause different individual to observe the same information in an entirely different way.
Disagreement plays an essential and unchangeable role to inspire new discovery of entirely different knowledge, and in the same time block out the social power, and influence exerted by the concretely believed knowledge that may be falsified. In the other hand, it also has the ability to refute all theories and laws that exists in natural science. But looking at the bright side of things, disagreement did not lead people to false and seemingly advanced knowledge, but a moment of truth and opportunity for more possibilities.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment