The role of Experiment in scientific research Mikkel Willum Johansen

Two different roles 1)Creation of phenomena (Ian Hacking) 2)Testing of theory The role of the experiment The hypothetico-deductive method 1)State a theory (a bold hypothesis) 2)Deduce empirically testable consequences 3)Conduct the test(s) 4)Adjust, if your hypothesis is falsified Scientific theories Absolute truth Time Karl Popper’s picture of scientific development

Brahes and the parallax Parallax

Brahes and the parallax Brahes argument 1.If the Earth revolves around the Sun, it must be possible to observe a parallax with my instruments 2.It isn’t possible to observe a parallax The Earth doesn’t revolve around the Sun

Brahes and the parallax Brahes argument 1.If … … the Earth revolves around the Sun … the Stars stand still … light travels in straight lines … the Universe is not ridiculously big … … then it must be possible to observe a parallax with my instruments 2. It isn’t possible to observe a parallax At least one of the hypothesis above must be false

The web of beliefs “The totality of our so-called knowledge … is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges... A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Reëvaluation of some statements entails reëvaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections … But the total field is so underdetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to reëvaluate in the light of any single contrary experience.” (Willard V. O. Quine: ”Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, 1951) Quine ( )

Experimenters regress Experiments only tell us something, if they are done competently, but when is that? In training: When we get the right result In real time science: ? To know the right answer, we must make successful experiments, but to know whether an experiments is successful or not, we most know the right answer

Edible knowledge Planarian Period: Late 1950s to mid-1970s Main figures: James McConnell and George Ungar McConnell’s experiment:

Edible knowledge Period: Late 1950s to mid-1970s Main figures: James McConnell and George Ungar McConnell’s experiment:

Edible knowledge + - Period: Late 1950s to mid-1970s Main figures: James McConnell and George Ungar McConnell’s experiment:

Edible knowledge Period: Late 1950s to mid-1970s Main figures: James McConnell and George Ungar McConnell’s experiment:

Edible knowledge Trained worm Period: Late 1950s to mid-1970s Main figures: James McConnell and George Ungar McConnell’s experiment: The 1962 result When trained worms are fed to untrained, the untrained worms become 1.5 times more likely to respond to light

Edible knowledge – the controversy Which variables are important for the experiment? Slime Treatment of the worms Species and size of the worms Housing (dark or light?) Nature of the electric shock Barometric pressure Skilled practice (golden hands) Experimenter’s regress It is unknown which factors might influence the experiment => It is unknown what constitutes a succesfull experiment

Edible knowledge – the controversy (Collins & Pinch p. 16)

Scientific controversy Scientists reasons for believing or disbelieving a controversial experiment (based on interviews) 1.Faith in a scientist’s experimental capabilities and honesty, based on previous working partnership 2.The personality and intelligence of experimenters 3.A scientist’s reputation gained in running a huge lab 4.Whether or not the scientist is worked in industry or academia 5.A scientist’s previous history of failures 6.Inside information 7.Scientists’ style and presentation of results 8.Scientists’ psychological approach to experiment 9.The size and prestige of the scientist’s university of origin 10.The scientist’s integration into various scientific networks 11.The scientists nationality (Collins and Pinch, p. 101)

James McConnell’s The Worm Re-Turns: The Best of from the Worm Runner’s Digest p.11

(Collins & Pinch p. 17)

The Hypothetico-deductive method 1)State a theory (a bold hypothesis) 2)Deduce empirically testable consequences 3)Conduct the test(s) 4)Adjust, if your hypothesis is falsified Scientific theories Absolute truth Time Karl Popper’s picture of scientific development Perspectives and conclusion

Experimenters regress To know the right answer, we must make successful experiments, but to know whether an experiments is successful or not, we most know the right answer Perspectives 1)What happens when commercial interests enters the debate? 2)When are scientists dishonest? 3)Uncertainty

Perspectives and conclusion ”The aim of this book is to explain the golem that is science. We aim to show that it is not an evil creature but it is a little daft. Goem Sceince is not to be blamed for its mistakes; they are our mistakes. A gollem cannot blamed if it is doing its best. But we must not expect too much. A golem, powerful though it is, is the creature of our art and our craft.” (Collins & Pinch, p. 2)