Isabella Stengers is deeply critical of scientific notions of Realism and Rationalism, which states that the real world is described by science alone and deductive reasoning is the chief source of knowledge respectively. Along with this criticism, she is advocating the idea that science should be integrated with other modes of knowledge to form an ecosystem of practices.
The modern practice of science is brimful of varying conceptual loopholes. Firstly, the so-called scientific method does not provide its validity: there does not exists an experiment which proves the correctness and universality of the method of experimentation. In general, this method is not applicable to science itself. One of the key functions of science is of prediction …show more content…
A key attribute of this notion is that it is simple to falsify an erroneous claim – only a single counterexample has to be provided – but strenuous, inconceivable in most cases, to present a general confirmation of a universal claim – universality implies infinity of scope, which cannot be supported by a finite amount of evidence. In some cases, even the production and verification of the counter-instance is counter-intuitive. In Mathematics, a 300 year old unsolved problem named as Goldbach’s conjecture, on which I personally worked on, is one such hypothesis. It is neither proven true nor any instance contradicting the statement of this conjecture is found yet. Induction is considered an appropriate tool for developing the idea necessary to come up with a theorem, but it is only deemed as proven if it is being followed by the formal procedure of its converse, logical deduction. It is yet another frailty in the rationalistic approach: the techniques of identical processes of designing and corroborating theories are extreme opposites of each …show more content…
Consider a 6-colored cube whose all faces have different colors. It is analogous to the real knowledge and all the faces to its different modes. Viewers of none of its face would be fallacious about its color but still possess contradictory opinions. Each of them needs to broaden their lens and work collectively in order to discover the actuality of the
The modern practice of science is brimful of varying conceptual loopholes. Firstly, the so-called scientific method does not provide its validity: there does not exists an experiment which proves the correctness and universality of the method of experimentation. In general, this method is not applicable to science itself. One of the key functions of science is of prediction …show more content…
A key attribute of this notion is that it is simple to falsify an erroneous claim – only a single counterexample has to be provided – but strenuous, inconceivable in most cases, to present a general confirmation of a universal claim – universality implies infinity of scope, which cannot be supported by a finite amount of evidence. In some cases, even the production and verification of the counter-instance is counter-intuitive. In Mathematics, a 300 year old unsolved problem named as Goldbach’s conjecture, on which I personally worked on, is one such hypothesis. It is neither proven true nor any instance contradicting the statement of this conjecture is found yet. Induction is considered an appropriate tool for developing the idea necessary to come up with a theorem, but it is only deemed as proven if it is being followed by the formal procedure of its converse, logical deduction. It is yet another frailty in the rationalistic approach: the techniques of identical processes of designing and corroborating theories are extreme opposites of each …show more content…
Consider a 6-colored cube whose all faces have different colors. It is analogous to the real knowledge and all the faces to its different modes. Viewers of none of its face would be fallacious about its color but still possess contradictory opinions. Each of them needs to broaden their lens and work collectively in order to discover the actuality of the