An examination of Laudan's "A Problem Solving Approach to Scientific Progress"

An Examination of Laudan’s “A Problem Solving Approach to Scientific Progress”

Larry Laudan argues three claims in his article, A Problem Solving Approach to Scientific Progress.  This first claim is that one cannot assess the rationality of science independently of understanding the goal or aim of science (Laudan, 191).  Second, the goal of science cannot be the traditional one of truth and/or certainty because such a goal is impossible for science to achieve, and hence can’t be used to explain the success and progress of science (Laudan, 191).  The third is that the goal of science is problem-solving effectiveness (Laudan, 191).  I will argue that Laudan is correct in all of these claims.  

In Laudan’s first claim that one cannot assess the rationality of science independently of understanding the goal or aim of science, the claim is rather simple.  Basically, it is impossible to explain the success of something without knowing the goal it is trying to ascertain.  How can one know how close they are to their goal if they don’t know what the goal is?  Clearly Laudan is right in this claim, because some goals are irrational to hold.  It is irrational to believe that science will ever ascertain truth, because scientists always find something that disproves it.  This brings us into Laudan’s second claim.  (Laudan, 191-193)

In Laudan’s second claim, he argues that the goal of science cannot be the traditional one of truth and/or certainty because such a goal is impossible for science to achieve, and hence can’t be used to explain the success and progress of science.  I agree with this claim as well.  Although it is obvious that science makes progress (cars, computers etc.),  it is impossible to justify that progress with truth.  Scientists think they find truth but then find something new that disproves it.        Because of this, even if scientists actually do obtain truth, how will they know?  There are some theories we believe are true, but eventually something changes that belief.  For example, how many theories do we still believe that were made 100 years ago?  How many of our current theories will we believe in 100 years(Cleland)?  Laudan isn’t saying that there is no such thing as truth, but that what science consists of, truth is not part of that.  (Laudan, 193-194)

Finally,  Laudan’s third claim is that the goal of science is problem-solving effectiveness.  I agree with Laudan, because from the “progress” we have seen in science, like the invention of cars, for example, have solved many problems for us.  Scientists typically recycle a theory once they have found a new one that is a better problem-solver. With this point, Laudan mentions ‘research traditions’. ‘Research traditions’ “consist of at least two components: (1) a set of beliefs about what sorts of entities and processes make up the domain of inquiry, and (2) a set of epistemic and methodological norms about how the domain is to be investigated, how theories are to be tested, how data are to be collected, and the like (Laudan, 194-195).”  Laudan believes that research traditions are important to obtaining the goal of science.  He believes that progress in science is in a research tradition, because succeeding theories are better problem solvers than preceding theories.  Clearly, Laudan is correct when saying that the goal of science is problem-solving effectiveness, because research traditions show how scientists recycle theories when one that comes closer to their goal is thought of.  (Laudan, 194-196)

Clearly,  Larry Laudan’s article A Problem-Solving Approach to Scientific Progress,  the progress of science, the definition of the goal of science, and how to achieve that goal are defined.  One cannot assess the rationality of science independently of understanding the goal or aim of science because that goal has not been defined. The goal of science cannot be the traditional one of truth and/or certainty because such a goal is impossible for science to achieve, and hence can’t be used to explain the success and progress of science.  This is so, because theories recycle themselves and there is no way to actually prove that a theory is true.  Clearly, the goal of science is problem-solving effectiveness, because of research traditions.  They show that scientists recycle theories when they discover a new theory that is closer to ascertaining their goal.  These three claims show how science cannot ascertain a goal without knowing it, science cannot be defined in truth, and the goal of science is problem-solving effectiveness.  (Laudan 191)

Works Cited

Cleland, Carol. Class lecture. Philosophy and Science  University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 10 Nov. 2010.

Laudan, Larry. “A Problem-Solving Approach to Scientific Progress”.Readings in the philosophy of Science

Schick, Jr., Theodore. (2000) Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.