STS Study guide

l.

http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm#sci
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/00033790.2019.1672788?needAccess=true
http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap3.htm

ll.

 illustrates diversity of realities you can observe in this world

 each of us has our own reality

 pushing for one's reality on others -> CONFLICT

 same case with our knowledge about natural world

o we know/not know something but it is just part of the whole

o e.g. flat earth theory = believed to be true during early times but proved to be

false

 epistemological problem

o problem of knowing

o "How do you know that?"

o people mostly rely on their ways of knowing without examining whether it is

true/false (e.g. fake news in social media)

o senses are fallible & people tend to become selective of facts

o addressed by 2 ways:

o wisdom method = in-depth study of a specific area

o scientific method = testing statements against reality

  4 ways of knowing (Ehman, 2005):

1. empiricism = senses for observation

2. rationalism = logical reasoning

3. authoritarianism = use of authority

4. intuition = inspiration/revelation

Reading material: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/pastoral/cpe/waysofknowing.pdf

Empiricism:
Empiricism emphasizes the role of the senses in gaining knowledge. It relies on

observation, experimentation, and the collection of empirical evidence. Advantages of

empiricism include its reliance on tangible evidence and its foundation in direct experience.

It encourages objectivity and can lead to reproducible results. However, empiricism may be
limited by the scope of our senses and can be influenced by individual interpretations and

biases.

Rationalism:
Rationalism emphasizes the power of logical reasoning and critical thinking in acquiring

knowledge. It involves analyzing and evaluating information through logical processes,

such as deduction and induction. Advantages of rationalism include its ability to detect

fallacies, identify inconsistencies, and make logical connections. It allows for rigorous
examination of ideas and can provide a strong basis for understanding. However,

rationalism can be limited by the availability and accuracy of information, as well as the
potential for biases in the reasoning process.

Authoritarianism:

Authoritarianism relies on the authority of experts or trusted sources to acquire

knowledge. It involves accepting information or beliefs based on the credibility and
reputation of those who provide it. Advantages of authoritarianism include the efficiency of

relying on established expertise and the convenience of accepting information without

personally investigating it. It can save time and effort. However, authoritarianism can be

susceptible to misinformation, reliance on outdated or biased sources, and the suppression

of critical thinking and independent inquiry.

Intuition:

Intuition refers to a form of knowing that arises from inspiration or revelation. It

involves a direct, immediate understanding without relying on conscious reasoning.

Advantages of intuition include its quick and spontaneous nature, potentially leading to
creative insights and novel perspectives. It can be useful in situations where there is limited

time for analysis. However, intuition is subjective and difficult to verify. It may also be
influenced by personal biases and emotions, making it unreliable in certain contexts.

EXAMPLES

Empiricism:
Empiricism relies on the senses for observation and the collection of empirical evidence. For

example:
 Conducting an experiment in a chemistry lab to observe chemical reactions and

gather data.
 Studying the behavior of animals in their natural habitat to understand their

ecological roles.
 Conducting surveys or interviews to collect firsthand experiences and opinions from

individuals.

Rationalism:
Rationalism emphasizes logical reasoning and critical thinking. Examples include:

Using deductive reasoning to solve a mathematical problem.

  Analyzing data from a scientific study to draw conclusions and formulate hypotheses.

 Evaluating arguments and identifying logical fallacies in a philosophical debate.

Authoritarianism:
Authoritarianism relies on the authority of experts or trusted sources. Examples include:

 Accepting medical advice from a qualified doctor or healthcare professional.

 Trusting the information provided in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

 Following guidelines and recommendations issued by reputable organizations, such

as the World Health Organization (WHO) or the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC).

Intuition:
Intuition involves a direct, immediate understanding without conscious reasoning. Examples

include:
 Making a decision based on a gut feeling or instinctive response to a situation.

 A scientist having an "aha" moment where a breakthrough idea or hypothesis

suddenly comes to mind.

 An artist relying on their intuition to create a unique and expressive piece of artwork.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After completing this lesson, you should be able to:

1. discuss the ways of knowing,

2. explain the scientific method,

3. implement the steps of scientific method, and

4. differentiate facts from opinions.

Scientific method

 one of the ways to ascertain validity of what we know = address

epistemological problem

 tests general statements against reality to evaluate truth in a manner that is

acceptable to different people with different values (Licklider, 1999)

How it is done:

1. research design must prove guess of researcher to be wrong by reality

2. researcher must be able to explain process of testing idea against reality so that
other people can replicate it

Reading
material: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288874254_How_Do_We_Know_What_W

e_Know

Main points of How Do We Know What We Know

1. The study of international relations is a part of the larger issue of epistemology, which
deals with how we know about reality in general.
2. Different types of questions arise in international relations, including empirical questions
(related to facts) and normative questions (related to values).
3. Empirical questions can be answered through greater knowledge and understanding of
what has and will happen, while normative questions depend on individual values.
4. The distinction between empirical and normative questions can sometimes be difficult
to make, but it is essential to understand.
5. The science and wisdom methods are two ways to answer empirical questions and
create agreement, but they have limitations and cannot resolve normative issues.
 6. The epistemological problem arises from the fallibility of our senses and our limited
ability to retain and perceive all the facts.
7. Our perception of reality is influenced by concepts and biases, which can lead to
distorted perceptions and selective attention to certain facts.
8. Our knowledge of international relations is usually indirect, relying on information
provided by others, which can be influenced by personal or institutional biases.
9. It is important to evaluate the assertions made by others and understand the strengths
and weaknesses of different approaches to addressing the epistemological problem.
10. Our concepts shape our perception of reality, and we may "see" things that are not
there or overlook important facts that contradict our preconceptions.
11. The epistemological problem makes it difficult to be confident in our own perceptions of
reality and to determine objective reality.

Overall, the text explores the challenges and limitations of understanding international relations
and highlights the importance of considering both empirical and normative aspects while being
aware of the epistemological problem.

Main points of the text:

1. Persuading others to accept our view of reality is essential for cooperation and achieving
shared goals in social activities, including international relations.
2. The wisdom method involves gaining intensive knowledge and specialization in a
particular area to develop an educated intuition about how things will behave.
3. Wisdom specialists select relevant facts based on their deep understanding and
experience in a specific subject area.
4. However, there are limitations to the wisdom method, including reluctance to make
generalizations, gaps in coverage for all countries, being caught off guard by major
changes, and the subjectivity of individual judgment.
 5. Disagreements among wisdom specialists can arise, making it challenging for outsiders
to determine which view is more accurate.
6. The wisdom method relies on personal knowledge and subjective judgment, making it
difficult to objectively evaluate the quality of research and explanations.
7. Outsiders must assess the credibility and expertise of wisdom researchers when
evaluating their ideas and perspectives.
8. There is no objective way to determine whose judgment is the best among wisdom
specialists, which further complicates the selection process for outsiders.
Overall, the text explores the wisdom method as an approach to gaining knowledge and
understanding in international relations. It highlights the benefits and limitations of
specialization and subjective judgment, emphasizing the challenges of persuading others and
evaluating different viewpoints in the pursuit of an intersubjective consensus.

Main points of the text: SCIENCE METHOD

1. The science method involves searching for patterns of behavior and establishing
generalizations that apply to many examples.
2. Science analysts aim to test hypotheses against reality and achieve results that can be
accepted as true by different people, regardless of their values.
3. The science method requires research designs that allow ideas to be proven wrong by
reality and clear explanations of the testing process for replication.
4. Hypotheses are general, empirical, comparative, and testable statements that focus on
groups of events or cases.
5. Operational definitions are crucial for replication, ensuring that others would select the
same set of facts as data using clear definitions of concepts.
6. The application of data involves comparing the hypothesis to a portion of reality and
presenting the process in a way that can be replicated by others.
7. Summarizing the results and drawing conclusions is the final step, which may lead to the
formulation of new hypotheses.
 8. Challenges in applying the science method to international relations include the
unpredictability of human behavior, difficulties in establishing general statements for
single cases, and the complexity and uniqueness of international events.
9. Science research often focuses on what cases have in common, making it challenging to
address unusual or unprecedented events.
10. The need for many cases in science can lead to the creation of trivial and irrelevant
research, and analysts may overlook the distinctive qualities of individual cases.

Main points of the text: Comparing Science to Wisdom

1. Science and wisdom are different methods of learning about the world, but their goals
are similar - to establish intersubjective consensus on the nature of the world.
2. The wisdom method involves intensive study of a particular area or country to
understand its unique characteristics, while the science method looks for patterns and
commonalities among different cases.
3. Wisdom relies on the expertise and knowledge of individual researchers, while science
aims to be independent of the researcher's quality.
4. Wisdom requires long-term study and specialization in a specific area, while science
requires familiarity with the scientific method.
5. Other methods of learning about reality include personal revelation from divinity, belief
systems or ideologies, and post-modernism's critique of science.
6. Personal revelation and belief systems may not be persuasive to others and can be
difficult to challenge or change.
7. Post-modernism argues that science is inadequate in addressing the epistemological
problem, but it has not yet provided an alternative method for creating intersubjective
agreement.
8. Currently, many people find the idea of testing theories against reality and replicating
results in a scientific manner to be the most persuasive method.
 9. Understanding and using the scientific method is important for participating in scholarly
and public debates.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After completing this lesson, you should be able to:

1. discuss the ways of knowing,

2. explain the scientific method,
3. implement the steps of scientific method, and
4. differentiate facts from opinions.

Facts versus opinions

FACT:

 positivist approach
o self-evident (simply there)
o physical phenomena = visible = factual
o confirmed by senses

 constructionist approach
o socially created
o once people agree that some things constitute a fact
o fallible
o e.g. flat earth theory

 scientific method

o used to distinguish between fact and opinion

o via observation & experimentation to test hypothesis (researcher's guess)
o knowledge created is called scientific fact

 thought collective
o exchange of ideas
o collective mood
o own peculiar thought style because of both understandings &
misunderstandings
o fact to one collective may be false to another collective
 o once more complex, divided into:

o esoteric = professionals
o exoteric = laypeople

 thought style (not immune to change)

1. active elements = shape the way people think
2. passive elements = objective reality (social constructs)

Fact: A fact is something that is considered true and can be verified objectively. It is based
on empirical evidence and can be confirmed through observations and measurements. Here
are a few examples:

 The Earth revolves around the Sun.

 Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level.
 The chemical formula for water is H2O.

Opinion: An opinion, on the other hand, is a personal belief or judgment that is not
necessarily based on verifiable evidence. It reflects someone's thoughts, feelings, or
preferences. Opinions can vary from person to person and can change over time. Here are a
few examples:

 "Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor."

 "I think pineapple on pizza tastes delicious."
 "Football is the most exciting sport."

The distinction between facts and opinions can sometimes be clear-cut, but there are cases
where it can be more challenging to determine. Now, let's explore the different approaches
and methods used to distinguish facts from opinions:

Positivist Approach: This approach views facts as self-evident truths that exist
independently of human perception. It suggests that physical phenomena that are visible
and observable are factual. For example, the fact that the Sun rises in the east and sets in
the west is evident through direct observation.

Constructionist Approach: This approach recognizes that some facts are socially
constructed. It highlights that certain beliefs or ideas become facts when people collectively
agree on their validity. However, these socially constructed facts are not immune to error or
change. An example of this is the historical belief in a flat Earth, which was widely accepted
as a fact until scientific evidence proved otherwise.
Scientific Method: The scientific method is a systematic approach used to distinguish
between fact and opinion. It involves making observations, formulating hypotheses
(educated guesses), conducting experiments or research, and analyzing the results. The
knowledge generated through this process is known as scientific fact. For instance, the fact
that smoking cigarettes increases the risk of developing lung cancer is supported by
extensive scientific research.

Thought Collective: A thought collective refers to a group of individuals who exchange

ideas and share a common understanding or belief system. Within a thought collective,
certain ideas or beliefs may be considered factual, while they may be regarded as false by
another thought collective. The complexity of thought collectives gives rise to esoteric
knowledge held by professionals and exoteric knowledge held by laypeople, each with its
own peculiar thought style.

Thought Style: Thought style refers to the way individuals within a thought collective think
and approach knowledge. It includes both active and passive elements. Active elements are
subjective and shape the way people think, such as cultural values or personal experiences.
Passive elements, on the other hand, represent objective reality or social constructs that
influence thought style. Thought styles can evolve and change over time as new information
and perspectives emerge.

Here are some examples of thought collectives:

Scientific Community: The scientific community is a thought collective composed of

researchers, scientists, and scholars who exchange ideas, conduct experiments, and share
knowledge within their respective fields. They adhere to specific methodologies and
standards of evidence, working together to advance scientific understanding. The collective
thought style within the scientific community emphasizes rigorous experimentation, peer
review, and evidence-based reasoning.

Religious Community: Religious communities consist of individuals who share a common

set of beliefs, values, and practices based on their faith or religion. These thought collectives
often have distinct thought styles shaped by religious texts, teachings, and traditions. Within
a religious community, certain beliefs or doctrines may be considered factual and
indisputable, forming the foundation of their faith.

Political Ideologies: Different political ideologies, such as liberalism, conservatism,

socialism, or libertarianism, represent thought collectives characterized by shared beliefs
and principles regarding governance, society, and individual rights. Each ideology has its
own thought style and interpretation of facts and opinions, influencing the way individuals
within that collective think about political issues.

Cultural and Ethnic Groups: Cultural and ethnic groups form thought collectives where
individuals share common values, customs, language, and traditions. These collectives shape
the way people perceive the world and influence their thought styles. For example, cultural
thought collectives may have distinct perspectives on family structures, social norms, and
rituals.

Online Communities: With the advent of the internet, online communities have emerged as
thought collectives that bring together individuals with shared interests or identities. These
communities can be centered around hobbies, professions, or specific topics. Online
platforms provide spaces for people to exchange ideas, discuss opinions, and form
collective knowledge within their respective communities.

It's important to note that thought collectives are not fixed or monolithic entities. They can
evolve, change, and overlap, with individuals belonging to multiple thought collectives
simultaneously. The exchange of ideas, beliefs, and knowledge within thought collectives
plays a significant role in shaping individual perspectives and societal discourse.

These examples and explanations should help you understand the difference between facts
and opinions, as well as the various approaches and methods used to distinguish between
them. Remember, facts are objective and verifiable, while opinions are subjective and based
on personal beliefs or preferences.

EXAMPLES OF Active Elements:

Personal Experiences: Personal experiences play an active role in shaping an individual's

thought style. For example, someone who has personally experienced the negative effects of
climate change may have a heightened awareness and concern for environmental issues. Their
personal experience influences their thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs about the environment.
Cultural Values: Cultural values are active elements that shape the way individuals within a
particular culture think. For instance, in some cultures, collectivism and community well-being
are highly valued, which may influence individuals to prioritize the needs of the group over
individual desires. In contrast, cultures that emphasize individualism may prioritize personal
freedom and autonomy.
Education and Upbringing: Education and upbringing contribute to an individual's thought style.
The knowledge and perspectives gained through formal education or upbringing in a particular
environment shape the way people think. For example, someone who has been educated in a
scientific discipline may approach problems with a logical and evidence-based mindset.

EXAMPLES OF PASSIVE Elements:

Social Norms: Social norms are passive elements that shape thought styles by defining socially
acceptable behavior and beliefs within a particular society or group. For instance, social norms
regarding gender roles can influence how individuals perceive their own capabilities and
opportunities.
Language and Communication: Language is a passive element that influences thought style by
providing a framework for expressing and organizing thoughts. Different languages have
different structures and vocabularies, which can shape the way individuals think about and
interpret the world around them.
Historical Context: Historical context acts as a passive element that shapes thought style by
influencing collective memory and shared narratives. Events and experiences from the past,
such as wars, revolutions, or social movements, can shape the way people perceive their
present reality and inform their attitudes and beliefs.
Media and Mass Communication: Media, including television, radio, newspapers, and social
media, act as passive elements that shape thought styles. The information and narratives
presented through media channels can influence public opinion, shape beliefs, and contribute
to the formation of collective thought styles.

It's important to note that these examples of active and passive elements are not mutually
exclusive. They often interact and influence one another in complex ways, shaping an
individual's thought style and worldview.
The scientific method is a systematic approach used by scientists to acquire knowledge about
the natural world. It typically involves the following steps:

 Observation: Scientists carefully observe a phenomenon or gather data from

experiments or existing sources.
 Question: Based on their observations, scientists develop research questions or
hypotheses to explain the observed phenomenon.
 Research: Scientists conduct a literature review to understand the existing knowledge
and theories related to their research question.
 Hypothesis: A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for the observed phenomenon. It is
formulated based on previous knowledge and serves as a starting point for scientific
investigation.
 Experimentation: Scientists design and conduct experiments or studies to test their
hypotheses. This involves manipulating variables, collecting data, and analyzing the
results.
 Analysis: The data collected during the experiment are analyzed using statistical
methods or other appropriate techniques. This analysis helps scientists draw conclusions
and identify patterns or relationships in the data.
 Conclusion: Based on the analysis of the data, scientists draw conclusions about whether
their hypothesis is supported or refuted. These conclusions may lead to further
questions or the development of new hypotheses.
 Peer Review and Publication: Scientists typically submit their findings to scientific
journals for peer review, where experts in the field evaluate the study's methods,
results, and conclusions. Publication allows the scientific community to access and
scrutinize the research, facilitating knowledge sharing and further discussion.
 Replication and Verification: Other scientists attempt to replicate the original study to
verify the results and ensure the reliability and validity of the findings. Replication adds
robustness to scientific knowledge and helps identify any potential errors or biases.
  Theories and Paradigm Shifts: Over time, as more evidence accumulates, hypotheses
may become theories, which are comprehensive explanations supported by substantial
evidence. Scientific theories can be revised or replaced if new evidence challenges their
validity, leading to paradigm shifts and advancements in scientific knowledge.
It's important to note that this is a general framework for the scientific process, and
variations exist across different scientific disciplines and research areas.

Scientists don’t find the truth. They make models. Truth is merely a model. To interpret what
they observe.

The main points of the text titled "What is a Scientific Fact?" include:
1. Facts and Theories: Facts are simple observations of the world that are assumed to be
unchanging, while theories are hypotheses about the meaning and understanding of
these facts that can evolve over time.
2. Types of Facts: Empirical facts are based on direct observational evidence, but most
scientific facts are a combination of observations and beliefs about the world
(conceptual facts).
3. Continuum of Facts: It is challenging to clearly distinguish between empirical and
conceptual facts. There is a spectrum of activity between direct observations and
theoretical models, including measurement and mathematical modeling.
4. Social Construction of Facts: Scientific facts are considered to be both claims about real
features of the natural world and products of social processes. Social constructionist
scholarship challenges the assumption that certain facts are essential and immutable.
5. Ludwik Fleck's Perspective: Ludwik Fleck argued that scientific facts are produced
through social processes within thought-collectives. Scientific observations go through
stages of vague perception, concept formation, and stylized perception.
6. Cognition and Thought-Collectives: Fleck proposed that cognition is a collective
activity, and thought-collectives have their own unique thought-styles. Scientific facts
act as constraints on the thinking of the collective.
 7. Example: Temperature: The text provides an example of the development of the
scientific fact of temperature. It explores the challenges in establishing fixed points for
temperature measurement, the role of instrumentation, and the social networks
involved in its production.
8. Network Theory of Facts: The text suggests that scientific facts are not simply
unproblematic observations but are produced and maintained through a network of
human and non-human actors. These networks can evolve and change over time.
Overall, the text challenges the notion of scientific facts as objective and unchanging,
highlighting their social and conceptual aspects and emphasizing the role of networks in their
production and evolution. http://www.f.waseda.jp/sidoli/Omnibus_Science_Sidoli_01.pdf