OBJECTIVITY, VALUE JUDMENT, AND THEORY CHOICE BY THOMAS KHUN

Review singkat

OBJECTIVITY, VALUE JUDMENT, AND THEORY CHOICE BY THOMAS KHUN

Penulis: Yannie Zhong

Objectivitas dalam Praktek Ilmiah

Dalam cuplikan artikel yang berjudul objectivity, value judment, and theory choice, Thomas Khun mengungkapkan sejumlah Kriteria yang menurutnya merupakan karakteristik yang patut dimiliki oleh teori ilmiah yaitu : Accuracy, Consistency, Scope, Simplicity, Fruitfulness.

a.      Accuracy: “consequences deducible from a theory should be in demonstrated agreement with the results of existing experiments and observations”

b.      Consistency: a theory should not contradict either itself or other currently accepted theories

c.      Scope: “a theory’s consequences should extend far beyond the particular observations, laws, or subtheories it was initially designed to explain”

d.      Simplicity: a theory should bring “order to phenomena that in its absence would be individually isolated, and, as a set, confused.”

e.      Fruitfulness: a theory should “disclose new phenomena or previously unnoted relationships among those already known.

Kelima kriteria tersebut sesuai dengan pandangan tradisional yang sejalan dengan pemikiran Khun, dan merupakan kriteria standar untuk mengevaluasi sebuah teori.

Kriteria diatas disebut sebagai objective characteristics of a good scientific theory. kriteria objective tersebut, menentukan dan enjadi landasan untuk melakukan pemilihan terhadap suatu teori dimana seringkali kelima kriteria tersebut tidak selamanya dapat diterpakan pada setiap teori yang ada. objectivitas harus ditempatkandan dianalisis berdasarkan pada criteria akurat dan konsisten.

Sesungguhnya dalam pemilihan suatu teori (praktek ilmiah) tidak dapat dilepaskan dari unsur subjectivitas, yang dikatakan oleh khun bahwa subjective bukan berarti tidak objective teapi bergantung pada perferensi historis seseorang untuk menentukan pemilihan terhadap sebuah teori.

Persoalan yang didiskusikan oleh Khun

Dalam tulisan ini Khun membandingkan dan mempertentangkan pandangannya dengan pandangan tradisional mengenai pemilihan sebuah teori.

A. Berikut ini adalah hal-hal yang disetujui oleh Khun dari Pandangan tradisional:

1. The “objective” characteristics of a good scientific theory are:
• Accuracy: “consequences deducible from a theory should be in demonstrated agreement with the results of existing experiments and observations”
• Consistency: a theory should not contradict either itself or other currently accepted theories
• Scope: “a theory’s consequences should extend far beyond the particular observations, laws, or subtheories it was initially designed to explain”
• Simplicity: a theory should bring “order to phenomena that in its absence would be individually isolated, and, as a set, confused.”
• Fruitfulness: a theory should “disclose new phenomena or previously unnoted relationships among those already known”
2. Two problems arise when using these criteria to choose between two or more competing theories:

·        The criteria are individually imprecise, thus, scientists may reasonably disagree about, e.g., whether one theory is more accurate than another. Call this the interpretation problem.

·        The criteria often conflict with each other, thus, scientists may reasonably disagree about, e.g., whether one theory’s greater scope outweighs the other’s greater accuracy. Call this the weighting problem.

3. Thus, reasonable disagreements between scientists reflect certain biographical or “subjective” differences:

·        Previous experiences as a scientist (success, specialization, skills)

·        Previous experiences outside of the sciences (religious experiences, political affiliations, influence by intellectual movements of the day)

·        Personality traits (originality, aversion to risk, love of details versus big picture)

B. Hal-hal yang tidak disetujui Khun dari pandangan tradisional:

Khun menolak sejumlah asumsi dari “traditional view” yaitu:

1. Subjective factors are irrelevant to philosophical discussions about theory choice.
• Traditional philosophers of science distinguish between:

                                                              i.      The context of justification—the reasons that tell us why scientists ought to choose one theory over another—and

                                                            ii.      The context of discovery—the causes and personal histories that tell us why scientists actually do choose one theory over another.

• Traditionally, objective criteria of theory choice fall within the context of justification and subjective criteria fall within the context of discovery.
• Since philosophers consider the context of discovery to be the province of history, psychology, and sociology of science, they consider subjective factors to be irrelevant to a properly philosophical discussion about theory choice.

Menurut Khun:

The distinction between contexts of justification and discovery is neither a plausible nor a useful idealization.

1.      Traditional philosophers of science cite crucial experiments as evidence that the five objective criteria are sufficient for a philosophical account of theory choice.

a.      However, typically crucial experiments are performed at a time when “no scientist still needed to be convinced of the validity of the theory their outcome is now used to demonstrate.”

b.      Thus, crucial experiments do not reflect genuine cases of theory choice.

2.      Traditional philosophers of science typically are engaging  in terms of their history, i.e., they only examine features of theories that by present standards we consider successful.

a.      However, it’s unclear that “winning” theories better satisfy the 5 criteria than their historical competitors, which are often ignored.

b.      Furthermore, it is often subjective factors, such as how one weights the various objective criteria, that prove important to theory choice.

3.      There is no unambiguous way of adjudicating between theory-choices determined solely through the context of justification versus those determined through both contexts of justification and discovery.

4.      The objective characteristics listed in (1) are rules that determine theory choice.

·        The criteria are not rules that determine theory choice, but are instead values, norms, and/or maxims that influence theory choice. (111)

·        Nevertheless, the five values/criteria “specify a good deal” as to how theory choices should proceed:

§         What each scientist must consider in reaching a decision;

§         What he may and may not consider relevant;

§         What he can legitimately be required to report as the basis for the choice he has made.

·        Kuhn berargumen bahwa jika kita memperlakukan kriteria-kriteria ini sebagai nilai/values , maka kita dapat menjelaskan hal-hal berikut:

§         The interpretation “problem”: These criteria can be interpreted in many ways because they’re not rules, only values.

§         The weighting “problem:” It’s difficult to weight these different criteria because they’re not rules, only values.

§         Crucial experiments and hard theory choices (see above): Hard theory choices are hard precisely because the criteria used to settle them are values, not rules.

§         The earliest stages of theory choice: The criteria (understood as values) are most influential during the earliest stages of theory choice (the “context of discovery”), which the traditional view dismisses.

§         Rational disagreement in science: Disagreements arise because of different interpretations and weights attached to the various values/criteria. If scientists had an algorithm for theory choice, they would always agree on the same theory.

§         The mercilessness objection: If the criteria are loose, as they would be if they were values, then theories could be maintained because of differences in interpretations and weights attached to values by different scientists.

·        However, treating these criteria as rules cannot explain these things

2. If theory choice is partly subjective, then it is irrational.

Menurut Khun:

 This treads on an ambiguity between subjective as defined as:

• Not objective, i.e., not independent of the personal history, preferences, etc. of the scientist judging the theories; and
• Personal taste and thus not subject to judgment, i.e., immune to criticism because merely a statement about the scientist, not the theory.

Ex. If I assert that “Jackass: The Movie is brilliant” then I have made a judgment that others can disagree with and cite certain values as evidence that I am wrong. This would be a matter of judgment. In contrast, if I make the weaker claim, “I think Jackass: The Movie is brilliant,” then I’m the ultimate authority because it’s a statement about me, not the movie. This would be a matter of taste.

Komentar Penulis Tentang Tulisan Khun

Tulisan Khun yang berjudul objectivity, value judment, and theory choice ini merupakan suatu bahasan yang diulas secara menarik dengan ungkapan-ungkapan filsafat yang disertai pengungkapan dengan contoh dan ilustrasi-ilustrasi yang dapat membantu pemahaman pembaca terhadap apa yang hendak diungkapkan oleh Khun.

Khun dalam hal ini berusaha menggungkapkan tentang bagaimana sebuah ilmu terus mengalami perubahan paradigma dimana kriteria-kriteria klasik tentang standar teori terus mengalami pergeseran/shift dan perkembangan. Hal ini menyebabkan semakin kompleksnya cara pandang terhadap ilmu dan praktek-praktek ilmiah.

Dengan berbagai penjelasan dan segala penyangkalan yang diungkapkan Khun terhadap pandangan klasik tentang keilmuan, Khun pada tulisan ini masih memberikan kesan keragu-raguan terhadap pembacanya, artinya ketika seorang pembaca awam membaca artikel ini, seorang pembaca tidak dapat serta merta mengetahui secara pasti bagaimana cara praktis dan pengukuran yang pasti yang dapat diterapkan pada suatu teori atau rumusan pasti untuk melakukan pemilihan terhadap suatu teori. Ranah filsafat yang menjadi pijakan pengungkapan dan gaya bahasa Khun inilah yang kemudian senantiasa memunculkan nuansa ambiguinitas yang memancing kembali pembacanya untuk mengolah alam pikirannya dan masuk kedalam nuansa pemikiran Khun tanpa langsung memberikan suatu penjelasan yang straight.