Literary Analysis Essay on Idealization and the Aims of Science

Introduction

In a well-crafted book by Potochnik, there is a central argument that idealization is fundamental to science. However, science is not out to seek the truth but instead support human practical and cognitive needs. In her book, Potochnik begins by creating two assumptions: 1) that the world being investigated by scientists is complex and 2): that science in itself is a project of limited human beings. It is from these assumptions that she argues that science which is practiced by human beings is merely a general idealization (Potochnik 2). Basing on her theoretical approach, science can be described as a normative approach founded on the knowledge practiced by limited human beings. To show how science is as limited as those who practice it, Potochnik begins his argument by claiming that much of the science used by humans is mainly understood from the search of casual patterns.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Potochnik does not define what she means precisely by patterns, but she mentions the irregularities in phenomena used in science. In simple terms, because the universe is complex and human beings have limited abilities, Potochnik claims that science is idealizations. However, these idealizations are useful because they simplify that which is complicated. Different people have distinct ideas, generalizations, and ideologies and would try to understand the complex universe from their end. Therefore, there cannot be one ultimately correct paradigm that science can adapt to understand the world.

Because the world is complex and humans have limited cognitive abilities, they form abstractions and idealizations which are understood as models that represent phenomena but in the end ignore some variables that other humans interact with. Such idealizations play a huge representational role where ideas serve a system that has a property which it does not have. For instance, a scientist who believes that surface A is flat would present a perfectly frictionless plane while another scientist would depict an infinite number of animals modeled to be standing on a level that makes them the same. Whether these accurate representations are successful in showing the similarity between factors or descriptions of reason; both views can be considered favorite in representing reality.

This means that we cannot choose the depiction of a frictionless plane or the alignment of animals to show that a complex surface is flat, but both idealizations can still represent reality successfully. In this respect, idealizations can be considered fiction. Therefore a question that arises is 'how does a fiction created by one person help us understand complex and casual patterns'? And why would science first checks on the spread of these fiction and correct on unchecked science? Presumably, we cannot use one idealization to focus on a complex aspect of the phenomenon at the expense of other essential elements which are of not much interest to the researcher (Dennet 30).

Kuhn in his composition supported science because it produced the greatest and original outbursts of creativity. However, he compared scientists to addicts and brainwashed characters (Kuhn 137). To strengthen his work, Kuhn raised a question on why most fields in science converge to form one paradigm while others remain in a constant flux of unbelief. To him, this scenario occurred because the generalizations and realizations by scientists were just ideas which could help explain a pattern and therefore because most people shared similar thoughts, they had to be merged. The other idealizations that remained in flux were probably unbelievable. His answer implied that scientists themselves could not commit to a single paradigm because they have different ideas of how patterns form. This strengthens the belief that no single model in science can be used to explain a sophisticated and natural trend.

In the philosophy literature that explains the theory-laden issue, Kuhn uses the terms 'perceive' and 'see' to explain some variations in the scientific process. To him, scientists tend to create a paradigm from what they perceive and what they see. Their perceptions and sight are different from what other people believe in, and therefore their theories cannot be used to support that which happens naturally and in a complex world because what they offer is mere idealization. From Kuhn's argument, it seems that the experiments conducted by scientists prove that the theory-laden view is correct because in most cases theory is influenced by sight and perception. With a sketch of perception and sight, Kuhn considers how well these factors account for general scientific theories and practice. Kuhn also believed that science progressed through a focused paradigm shift (Kuhn 133). To him, a paradigm shift is a revolutionary change that is driven by transformation. With these transformations, it is easier to think of the new paradigm as a change from one way of thinking to another. The new models are later accepted because the ideas of old scientists die off and are either updated or replaced. Therefore, as generations change, it would be dangerous to stick to one particular scientific belief which is probably an old model.

In chapter 4 of Potochnik's development, she argues that the end goal of science in the truth and not understanding. According to her, knowledge can only be achieved one causal pattern are revealed. The idealization used by scientists can only be used to promote understanding and not explain the truth. Potochnik's account of knowledge is based on Elgin's theory of understanding being of dual nature (Elgin 30). According to Elgin, scientists chase recognition and not the truth. Understand comes from a cognitive state and so it is subject to properties of what the scientist knows which is different from what another researcher knows. Understanding according to Elgin is also an epistemic achievement and being so, it is connected to the success conditions of particular accomplishments of the scientists. One original success condition is arguing be accurate enough. Following Elgin's development, Potochnik says that because scientists do not believe in false claims, they create epistemic attitudes towards ideas and choose to investigate the purpose at hand. When the goal is different, the reality of the science is different, so why should we pick on one paradigm and leave out the other when one scientist chooses to focus on something different which is not of interest to another researcher?

I believe that there cannot be one ultimate and correct paradigm that scientists could adapt to explain the understanding of the world. This is because how scientists understand and carve up the world is intimately linked to their explanatory interests. Because no individual case could correctly explain a casual pattern and casual patterns are needed for explanation of natural phenomena and understanding, the representations by scientists could have some truth, but one paradigm should not be picked as an accurate prediction. A story about the Komodo dragons has been told since the past: despite their size, these dragons have only survived on Flores because of the association between their thermoregulatory systems structures among other structures. In the dragon narrative explanation, no single casual paradigm has been adopted. Instead, there are series of patterns (biological changes, Pleistocene extinction among others) which have been put together. However, even in the presence of these patterns, other paradigms must have been dismissed; meaning that there are reasons why other scientific explanations are placed before others.

For one paradigm to be chosen, there must random inquiry followed by a casual collection of facts. In the early stages of the investigation, the scientist must show how he confronts a similar phenomenon dealt with by other researchers. Other than facing the same event, a paradigm can only be accepted if it describes and interprets a game in different ways. Future implications to the chosen phenomena are that with time, the descriptions and interpretations created by the scientist will entirely disappear while a pre-paradigmatic school arises. To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must also be better than other competing theories (Morgan 379).

Additionally, for a paradigm to be accepted, it must create a central subject with the leading strand with which the historical narrative is woven. That is, it must contain a unique causal history of a phenomenon which explains unity. While paradigms are selected, paradigm shifts are also necessary. It is the reason for the existence of paradigm shifts that I believe that one single theory should not be used to explain a natural phenomenon. A paradigm could also be chosen because it is not so rigid and has other scientific communities closely knit. Normal science does not aim to leave any phenomenon uncovered. A paradigm must incorporate radical and new theories that have been invented by other scientists. Fundamentally, for a model to be accepted, it must bring about a paradigm change. So how does such a paradigm change occur? A paradigm change occurs through discovery, through the novelty of theory or innovation of fact. The paradigm must begin with a standard discovery that nature has violated the paradigm-induced expectations that dictate normal science. After, the change can only be made complete when the paradigm is adjusted so that that which is normal becomes expected. The result of this is that the scientist shows how he can 'see things in a different way' which results in the invention.

The arguments by Potochnik put together to bring out a well-argued development that articulates a clear view of science and the role of idealization in a world occupied by cognitively limited people. Idealizations are needed to explain phenomena in science but should be taken as trust. The reason why a single paradigm should not be picked gives us much to think about. Potochnik walks her audience with grace through a general account of science while staying true to science's idiosyncrasies. In the end, relevant lawmakers should choose between taking constraints seriously while not compromising on the reality of what other people prefer as interests. While different researchers have different perceptions and view of phenomena, one theory should not be accepted because according to Potochnik, science is responsive to and a reflection of human particularities and should not be used to undermine the success of other life factors.

Works Cited

Dennett, Daniel. "Real Patterns." The Journal of Philosophy 1991, 88: 27-51.

Elgin, Catherine. Understanding and the facts. Philosophical Studies, 2007, 132(1), 33-42.

Khun, Thomas. Scientific revolutions as change of world view. PDF 133-154.

Morgan, Gregory. "Laws of biological design: a reply to John Beatty." Biology & Philosophy 2010, 25: 379-389.

Potochnik, Angela. Explanatory independence and epistemic interdependence: A case study of the optimality approach. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2010, 61(1), 213-233.

Potochnik, Angela. Idealization and the Aims of Science. University of Chicago Press, 2017, Pp. 252