Science has a long history with different schools of philosophy, from the Rationalism of Descartes to the Empiricism of Hume. The problem of demarcation—or what counts as science and what doesn’t—has plagued the processes and nature of science since its conception, and has been tackled from the Ancient Greeks to the Logical Positivists. The modern basis of science finds itself in the work of Karl Popper, who developed the meta-theoretical school of Postpositivism, that sought to correct many of the problems with Logical Positivism. They broke down the subject-object divide; asserted that all knowledge is necessarily conjectural and warranted as opposed to authoritative and definite; and advanced Falsificationism. This led to the epistemological school of Critical Rationalism; which embodied the ideas of Postpositivism into a scientific method. Critical Rationalism rejected the Strong Rationalism of the French Enlightenment, the Verificationism of the Logical Positivists and all forms of inductive Empiricism. Critical Rationalism argued science was a ‘natural selection’ of hypotheses. Popper’s main achievement was solving the Problem of Induction, which he claimed was actually a myth. Inductive reasoning can’t lead to justified knowledge, as justification ‘begs for an authoritarian answer’. The whole underlying assertion of Popper and his work was that knowledge is perspectivist and conjectural; ideas which has been espoused by Friedrich Nietzsche, R.M. Hare and Sam Harris.
Lawrence Krauss best summarised the attitude of science to authority when he said: ‘There are no authorities in science’. There may be people considered experts in certain fields of research, but their word is not authoritative, and only serves as valid if backed up by significant empirical evidence. For instance, Newton is considered the original expert on physics and gravity. Nobody, however—or at least no scientist—would take Newton’s works as absolute. In fact, Newton’s work has been largely displaced by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, which offers a geometric explanation of spacetime. Despite this, however, Einstein also isn’t considered authoritative. Recent revelations in theoretical physics—namely quantum mechanics—has highlighted the problems of General Relativity and made scientists realise the need for a unified theory which reconciles a quantum description of matter with a geometric explanation of spacetime. The existence of singularities, and a need for the ability to understand the interiors of black holes as well as the early universe also indicate a need to develop a full quantum theory of gravity, which can be combined with a description of the geometry of spacetime in the language of quantum physics. There are also fledging hypotheses which are Popper falsifiable, such as Lee Smolin’s cosmological natural selection, which could become part of our body of knowledge.
Science, as a whole process, can be considered an authoritative methodology for informing how we ought to view the world. Relying on the assumptions of ontological realism—more specifically metaphysical naturalism—science has proved its worth by working; it is the single best method of determining the value of the empirical content of certain propositions. The problem many religious—and even secular people—have with viewing science as an authority is that they view science as a monolithic body of knowledge, as opposed to a gestalt of processes under constant revision. Science is a collection of probabilistic assertions subject to revision or rejection at any time.In more specific questions of how we ought to act, in moral terms, science also claims to be able to inform. This rejects the historic fact-value distinction made by Hume, which asserts science can only say what is real, not how we ought to act. Founded on the philosophical basis of ethical naturalism—which makes a number of propositions to reach this point—people like Michael Shermer and Sam Harris have made the case for a science of morality. Richard Feynman used the idea of cargo cult science to criticise certain areas and people who give the appearance of being outwardly scientific, while lacking the content of proper scientific study.
Politics is the theory and practice of influencing people on certain levels—be they global, civic or individual. More narrowly, politics is concerned with how best to order a society via governance and economics is concerned with the way humans produce, distribute and consume goods. Taken together, the government is responsible for the broad socioeconomic outlook of a society.It’s more than likely that states, or governments, arose out of the need to wage warfare. Humans are naturally tribal, and processes like moral cognition have arisen out of a need to form cohesive, culturally uniform and self-domesticated groups. This development of morality paved the way for centralised social structures, which would eventually lead to agriculture and then cities and then civilisation. Religion has also had a massive effect on politics; only recently has the divine mandate to rule been rejected as a legitimate basis for a government. The Enlightenment has had the largest impact on the nature of government. The development of certain ideas like (classical) liberalism have contributed widely to Western civilisation both then and now. In countries like Britain empiricism, common law and respect for tradition evolved alongside developments in France around rationalism, civil law and progressivism—with liberty as an underlying value.
The history and development of various ideas within politics and economics stretch back to, most notably, the work of Aristotle. However, figures during the Enlightenment and thereafter have shaped our conceptions of these two areas of human activity the most. Adam Smith, who wrote The Wealth of Nations, probably had the biggest impact on the development of 19th Century British politics. His classically liberal ideas about the rule of law, small government and free trade still permeate today among many conservatives and libertarians. Edmund Burke, famous for his support of the American Revolution, is often considered the founder of modern conservatism and still impacts many attitudes of conservatives (especially traditionalists) today.Karl Marx is also the founding father of the Left, having codified the ideas of a ‘scientific’ socialism and eventually communism into a set doctrine. FDR is considered by man to be the first U.S. President to implement policies influenced by modern liberalism, which includes bigger government, more regulation and a bigger welfare state. John Maynard Keynes was massively influential post-WWII, and his ideas of an activist government during a Recession has seen a resurgence since 2008 due to the global Great Recession.Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek were two free-market economists who influenced various heads of government from Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan to Brian Mulroney and Mart Laar.
Unlike science, politics doesn’t offer a set methodology or certain principles which are effective as to be essentially infallible. The nature of political authority, therefore, is much more unstable and subject to considerable criticism. In the modern world, where governments aren’t justified by divinity or any transcendent authority and democracy is the norm, governments and politicians are often viewed with a lack of respect or with outright hatred. The Conservatives, in the U.K., are viewed by those on the Left as the party of the rich and privileged whereas Labour are viewed as the party of populism and the underclass. Without the self-corrective mechanisms of science, or the claims to absolutism of theology, governmental failures are easy to spot and often exacerbated. It’s well known now that the government caused the Great Depression of the 1930s, and it’s more than likely that poor policies in 2006/7 led to the Great Recession of 2008/9. When people understand this, there’s often a visceral disgust for the government.Instances wherein people think the government has committed an intentional injustice also leads to a repudiation of their authority, such as people who believe the 2003 War in Iraq was unjustified. Despite this, however, the government also enforces the fundamental (moral) laws which govern our society; it isn’t that government is repudiated as an authority, but certain governments.
but I was a bit confused by how you used semicolons in the second paragraph.
Is my description of quantum mechanics/gravity in relation to general relativity correct from your perspective? You have a greater grasp of science than I do.
Does my presentation make sense? UPDATED
