Question What has happened in the last hundred years which convinces us that our 'scientific knowledge' is any more valid than previously?

Accepted:
June 3, 2008

Comments

The answer I'd want to offer isn't "philosophical" in the sense of being some sort of response to skeptical arguments. It's more straightforward and more from the point of view of science itself, as it were. And the answer, in general, is just that we've gotten a lot better at measuring things, doing experiments and analyzing data. We've also got a great deal more data than we used to have. A comparison of sorts: when the telescope came on the scene, we came relatively quickly to the conclusion that we could say a good deal more, a good deal more reliably, about the heavens than we could before. Similar comments apply to the old-fashined optical microscope, and even more so to devices like the electron microscope. Likewise, as statistics came into its own, we got a good deal better at analyzing data and drawing robust conclusions from it. It's arguable that the kinds of modeling techniques that computers have allowed us to develop are yet another example. So at least part of the answer has to do with two things: significant improvements in intrumentation and experimental technique, and the development of new and better analytical methods.

Now of course, a certain sort of skeptic might ask why we take any of this seriously in the first place. But that's a different sort of question, and one that, as noted, the remarks above aren't meant to deal with.

Question What has happened in the last hundred years which convinces us that our 'scientific knowledge' is any more valid than previously? Accepted:June 3, 2008

Question What has happened in the last hundred years which convinces us that our 'scientific knowledge' is any more valid than previously?

Accepted:
June 3, 2008