The common ideology of science

The common ideology of science *Note: This article is from the book (Traitors of Truth: Cheating and Deception in the Halls of Science) for more please check out the book. The common concept of science is strongly tempting because it is based on a set of highly attractive ideals about how science should work. It can be accurately described as an ideology, and scientists from all over the world will not be too enmeshed in it because it does not, in fact, contain much of what is true about science. The common ideology of science can be summarized under three headings: the cognitive structure of science, the verification of scientific claims, and the peer review process. (1) Knowledge structure of science Scientific knowledge is organized into a hierarchical system referred to by philosophers as the "cognitive structure" of science. First, there are facts, such as that collected by the botanist when observing the product of plant breeding experiments, or by the physicist when measuring the properties of subatomic particles. Judging from the facts, the scientist will try to formulate a conjecture, or hypothesis, that explains some of the particular features of the facts. Laws are valuable principles of science because they predict and explain large entities of facts. They also describe a system that is important in nature, but they do not necessarily explain the facts that describe it. The theory of science has a more balanced meaning than it does in everyday language. The theory makes sense and explains a broad body of scientific knowledge, including laws and facts that depend on laws. The theory is also based, of course, on facts and laws that explain them, but at the same time contains elements that have no direct evidence. The theory of evolution is another example of a theory that has been greatly appreciated by scientists because of its immense explanatory power, although it lies in a feeling so deep that it is difficult to directly prove and disprove it. The cognitive structure of science ranges from the abundant observational facts, to the underlying laws that explain them, to the theories that explain the laws. Flexibility is one of the most important characteristics of this structure. Laws can change or modify in the light of new facts, and theories remain fallible by intellectual revolutions that replace them with better and usually more comprehensive theories. (2) Verification of scientific claims Science is a public activity, carried out by a group of scientists probing and checking each other's work. The world should go through a series of tests starting with a "peer review system" (described below) in order to get funding for a research program. It should also publish its research findings in a scientific journal, but before publication the journal's editor sends his research to the scientific reviewers, known as referees. The scientist claiming a new discovery must do so in a way that allows others to verify his claim. So, when describing the experiment, the researcher will state what equipment was used and what procedure was followed, much like the cook’s recipe. Scientific knowledge differs from other forms of knowledge in that it is verifiable. It is produced by a group of scientists who continuously verify each other’s work, eliminating the unreliable, and building on the proven results. (3) Peer review process Most of the university’s scientific activity is funded by the federal government, the dominant sponsor of basic research. The government determines the total amount of money to be spent in each region, but it is the scientists’ committees that decide which of their colleagues is worthy of receiving the money. These committees, which perform an advisory function to government agencies, form a “peer review system.” This is the complex of ideas and values that make up mainstream science’s ideology. This is how science should work, and it is now working in part. Scientists are so strongly attached to this ideology that they find it difficult to notice any significance in any deviation from it. They are derived from the studies of science carried out specifically by philosophers, as well as historians and social scientists. These specialists in science have seen a reflection of features and ideals that are especially important for their disciplines and have completely ignored others. Simply put, philosophers have written only about the logic of science, social scientists have been concerned with the "models" of scientific behavior, and historians have been concerned for the most part with demonstrating the progress of science and the encouraging triumph of rationalism over superstition. The common ideology of science is a composite image derived from the results of all three disciplines. But since each has presented a description of science from its own perspective and example, the complete picture is, unsurprisingly, an incomplete and perfect representation. A common ideology seriously loses its focus on the process of science rather than on the motivations and needs of the scientists. Scholars do not differ from other people in the production of scientific awards. When they wear the white coat at the door of the informant, they do not take away the feelings, ambitions and feelings of failure that move those involved in other aspects of life. Modern science is a profession, and articles published in the scientific literature are the points of passage. William Broad - Neoclass Wade — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2019-07-30 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/science-scientism/الأيديولوجيا-الشائعة-للعلم