Identifying Future-Proof Science

280 Pages·2023·4.199 MB·English

by  Peter Vickers

OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,1/7/2022,SPi
Identifying Future-Proof Science
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,1/7/2022,SPi
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,1/7/2022,SPi
Identifying Future-Proof
Science
PETER VICKERS
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,1/7/2022,SPi
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©PeterVickers2023
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2023
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2022935028
ISBN978–0–19–286273–0
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780192862730.001.0001
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,1/7/2022,SPi
Formyparents
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,1/7/2022,SPi
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,1/7/2022,SPi
Contents
Preface ix
ListofFigures xiii
1. What Is Future-Proof Science? 1
1 ScienceandScepticism 1
2 MisleadingEvidence 6
3 ApproximateTruth 10
4 Future-ProofScience 13
5 OutlineoftheBook 19
2. The Historical Challenge to Future-Proof Science:
The Debate So Far 23
1 FrustrationandMiscommunicationinthe‘Scientific
RealismDebate’ 23
2 Stanford’sScientificScepticism:DeathbyaThousand
Qualifications? 29
3 TheHistoricalChallenge:AreWeEpistemicallyPrivileged? 38
4 WeightofEvidenceJudgements:ScientistsvsPhilosophers 43
3. Meckel’s Successful Prediction of Gill Slits: A Case of Misleading
Evidence? 52
1 Introduction 52
2 TheGillSlitPrediction:SuccessfromFalsity? 54
3 AResponse? 60
4 VonBaer 63
5 TheArgumentfromEmpiricalKnowledge 67
6 Conclusion 72
4. The Tiktaalik ‘Missing Link’ Novel Predictive Success
and the Evidence for Evolution 76
1 Introduction 76
2 Tiktaalik:AnImpressiveNovelPredictiveSuccess
ofEvolutionTheory? 78
3 TheFullBodyofEvidence 87
4 The‘ConsensusApproach’toEvolution 91
5 Conclusion 98
5. The Judgement of the Scientific Community: Lessons from
Continental Drift 100
1 Introduction 100
2 WasThereaConsensusRegardingtheTruthofContinental
Permanency? 102
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,1/7/2022,SPi
viii 
3 TacklingtheThresholdProblem(i):AnalysingCommunity
Dynamics 111
4 TacklingtheThresholdProblem(ii):TrustBasedon
PastReliability 120
5 Conclusion 127
6. Fundamental Physics and the Special Vulnerability to
Underdetermination 130
1 Introduction 130
2 TheSommerfeldMiracle 133
3 InSearchofaPrincipledEpistemicDistinction 141
4 RejectingCallsforaPrincipledEpistemicDistinction 150
5 InterpretingClaimsfromFundamentalPhysics 155
6 Conclusion 162
7. Do We Know How the Dinosaurs Died? 164
1 Introduction 164
2 AssessingtheOpposition—FirstPass 168
3 AssessingtheOpposition—SecondPass 171
4 ShouldWeBelievetheAlvarezHypothesis? 179
5 CodaonApproximateTruth 186
6 ConcludingThoughts 188
8. Scientific Knowledge in a Pandemic 190
1 MisuseandAbuseof‘ScientificConsensus’ 190
2 WhenWastheCauseofCovid-19KnownwithCertainty? 192
2.1 KindsandOutliers 193
2.2 TheEmpiricalRoutetoFuture-ProofScience 196
3 TheMesosomeObjection 203
4 ConcludingThoughts 213
9. Core Argument, Objections, Replies, and Outlook 216
1 CanWeIdentifyFuture-ProofScience? 216
1.1 TheCriteriaforFuture-ProofScience 216
1.2 TheCoreArgumentBehindtheCriteria 219
1.3 IdentifyingFuture-ProofScienceinPractice 221
2 ObjectionsandReplies 223
2.1 ‘Truthisnotdecidedbyashowofhands’ 223
2.2 WhenIsaScientificCommunitySufficientlyDiversefor
Future-ProofScience? 227
2.3 Counterexamples 229
2.4 IstheSunaStar? 232
3 ImplicationsforSchoolEducation 234
4 Outlook 237
Bibliography 241
Index 261
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,1/7/2022,SPi
Preface
This book starts with something that looks more like philosophy of science,
andendswithsomethingthatlooksmorelikesociologyofscience.Orperhaps
I should say integrated history, philosophy, and sociology of science. One
reasonisthatthemethodsof‘pure’philosophycanbefrustrating:theynever
seemtoestablishanythingdefinitively.Debatesseemdestinedtogoaroundin
circles, or else evolve somehow,without everreaching a firm conclusion that
might be held up to outsiders as a noteworthy achievement. I tried to add
somethingimportanttothe‘scientificrealismdebate’earlierinmycareer,fully
imbued with the philosophy that the truth is out there, and the thought that
just maybe I could help us reach that truth. But the tools at my disposal as a
‘pure’ philosopher never seemed to go very far. Whilst one could fill a career
thatway,Ididn’twanttojustfillacareer;Iwantedtoreachtruth,oratleast
headclearlyinthatdirection.
Thus I was drawn towards methods that were not merely philosophical.
History seemed a good place to start, since with the history of science comes
data,ofakind,thatonemightbuildaphilosophyupon.Thuswereach‘HPS’,
a field premised on a thorough integration of history and philosophy of
science. But what came to me much later was the thought that the methods
ofsociologymightalsobethrownintothemix.Ihadbeenaversetosociology,
sincetheterm‘sociologyofscience’alwaysseemedtobeattachedtoaspecific
(rather extreme) attitude towards science, as being so thoroughly influenced
by social factors that there could never be any talk of ‘facts’, as I understood
thatword.Butifweshakethisspecificmovementoff,andthinkmorebroadly
about what sociology of science might be (social epistemology)—inspired by
scholars such as Helen Longino—then another promising methodology pre-
sentsitself.JustasHPSallowsfor amethodthatispartiallyempirical,sotoo
sociology is no stranger to empirical methods. These methods bring the
endeavour that bit closer to natural science, and move us that bit further
away from ‘pure’ philosophy. In this way, one might still dream of saying
somethingdefinitiveaboutscience,somethingthatcoulddrawaconsensusof
opinioninawaythatisvanishinglyrareinphilosophy.
The extent to which I have managed to combine these methods, and say
something rather definitive, is unclear. It remains predominantly a work in