Western science is a systematic way of building and organizing knowledge. Its underlying principles are causality, logic, rationality, universality and physicalism. This kind of science is, in line with its claim of universal validity, widely seen as the only way of doing science. Is this truly the case? Or is western science just one science among many?
An application of global epistemic relativism and the equal-validity thesis to these questions leads in a first step to the notion that western science is just one science among many. In a second step, an absolutist objection challenges this view. Three relativist responses to this challenge result in the finding that, theoretically, western science is just one among many. In a last step, it is argued that this finding seems counter-intuitive. This essay does not cover how non-western science could look like in detail.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Global epistemic relativism: There is a plurality of equally valid sciences
An absolutist objection
Three relativist responses
The problem of counter-intuitiveness
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This essay explores the philosophical question of whether Western science maintains a unique status of universal validity or if it represents merely one among several equally valid scientific systems. It investigates the application of global epistemic relativism to scientific knowledge and evaluates the validity of absolutist objections, ultimately arguing that the incompatibility of disparate conceptual schemes presents a significant barrier to cross-cultural scientific dialogue and mutual understanding.
- The theoretical application of global epistemic relativism.
- The critique of the "equal-validity thesis" and absolutist counter-arguments.
- The role of self-ratifying systems and internal coherence in scientific frameworks.
- Ontological and semantic implications of competing conceptual schemes.
- The problem of translation and understanding across distinct scientific paradigms.
Excerpt from the Book
An absolutist objection
Even if it appears now as if western science is just one science among many, this notion gets challenged by absolutists who shed the light on an internal incoherence: If the claim, that A and B are both justified to believe in p according to different sciences, itself asserts an absolute fact, then it is false that there are no absolute facts. If it asserts a relative fact, one is justified in accepting the view only relative to a relativist epistemic system. Then it is unclear how the view is supposed to persuade anyone. Why, in particular, should the relativist view regarding equal-validity of different sciences better capture the way things are than any non-relativist view? There is then no good answer to the absolutist, who rejects this relativist epistemic system that allows for two (or more) sciences. To rescue the relativist approach, Boghossian suggests that perhaps the relativist could say that relativism itself is true only in a framework-relative sense, but that this is still a framework that is useful for all of us to adopt. Nevertheless, the relativist encounters the same problem: either the claim in italics represents an absolute fact (which would result in relativism being incoherent), or it only represents a framework-relative fact, in which case “it fails to seriously challenge the absolutism it is meant to contest, and the absolutist remains free to ignore it”
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Defines the scope of the essay and sets up the central inquiry regarding the universal status of Western science versus the potential for a plurality of scientific systems.
Global epistemic relativism: There is a plurality of equally valid sciences: Outlines the three foundational claims of global epistemic relativism and the equal-validity thesis as they apply to the justification of knowledge claims.
An absolutist objection: Examines the internal logical challenges posed by absolutists, specifically concerning the incoherence of asserting relative facts as absolute truths.
Three relativist responses: Presents potential counter-arguments from the relativist perspective, focusing on the concepts of self-ratification and the non-privileged status of Western logic.
The problem of counter-intuitiveness: Analyzes why the relativist conclusion is perceived as counter-intuitive by Western practitioners and discusses the difficulties of translating concepts across disparate schemes.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the arguments and reflects on the impossibility of a truly clarificatory dialogue between mutually incompatible scientific systems.
Keywords
Western science, Epistemic relativism, Equal-validity thesis, Absolutism, Scientific inquiry, Conceptual schemes, Rationality, Logic, Self-ratification, Empirical underdetermination, Translation, Indeterminacy, Ontology, Knowledge systems, Incompatibility.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this essay?
The essay examines the philosophical validity of Western science, questioning whether it constitutes the sole objective way of understanding the world or if it is one of many equally valid epistemic systems.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include global epistemic relativism, the conflict between absolutist and relativist views of knowledge, the internal coherence of scientific frameworks, and the conceptual barriers between different cultures of science.
What is the main goal of the author?
The primary goal is to analyze whether the claim that all sciences are equally valid can withstand logical scrutiny, and to highlight the difficulties in cross-paradigm communication.
Which methodology is employed in this research?
The author uses a analytical philosophical approach, applying established frameworks of epistemic relativism and testing them against absolutist objections and the implications of conceptual scheme theories.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section covers the formal definition of relativism, the logical critique from absolutists, specific responses to defend relativism, and the cognitive barriers that prevent scientific translation.
Which keywords define this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as global epistemic relativism, equal-validity, conceptual schemes, and scientific rationality.
How does the author define the "self-ratifying" nature of science?
The author explains that a scientific system is self-ratifying when it validates its own rules and methods from within its own logical framework, making it difficult to challenge from an external perspective.
What does the essay conclude regarding the possibility of dialogue between different sciences?
The author concludes that because scientific schemes filter and frame facts differently, a uniquely correct translation is impossible, rendering a deep, meaningful dialogue between them almost impossible.
- Citation du texte
- David Schneider (Auteur), 2017, Is western science just one science among many?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/385485
