The document discusses the credibility and reliability of scientific research and findings. It notes that while science aims to understand the natural world through the scientific method, verification is more difficult in human sciences due to openness to interpretation. The document also examines how average knowers and experts can both be convinced by scientific claims even when evidence is limited or findings could later be disproven. It concludes that science establishes authority through constant self-correction and monitoring to adapt to new innovations and theories.

1. Aldo Baldani Topic no. 5 dqf582 (000618-002)
1
Results of scientific research, new scientific discoveries and science in general are
omnipresent. They are easily accessible through media portals, for both the expert in the field
and the average knower, both relying on scientific facts in their daily lives. For instance, when
millions of users consult Wikipedia with the goal of expanding their understanding of a subject,
even though Wikipedia holds the connotation of being an encyclopaedia, with facts reviewed in
depth, the information available on that site can virtually be posted and altered by anyone. That
brings into question the credibility of and reliability in scientific research and scientific method
as well as of the sources. This issue concerns the credibility in human and natural sciences and
their results that most people, both average knowers and experts, are unable to verify. Is there
really a distinction between the two when it comes to the power of evidence? What makes a
person an expert? And most rivetingly, how is it that the epistemic authority of science seems
indubitable if reality itself is refutable as suggested by René Descartes in his “Meditations on
first philosophy“1
?
Science connotates many concepts such as knowledge, truth and scientific method. But
when attempting to clearly define this term, difficulties may arise. It is unequivocal that biology
is a science and scientology is not, as could be easily demonstrated by the falsifiability method
of Karl Popper since, as he suggests, no theory is made false but can rather be proven false by
the means of research studies and experiments2
.
Sciences are involved in the unravelling of problems or phenomena with the goal of
understanding how the world and the universe operate. In the following paragraphs it will be
my intention to elaborate on those claims in the context of human and natural sciences.
The aim of natural sciences is to understand the natural world by the means of the scientific
method which consists of several steps that involve multiple proving and disproving of the set
hypothesis. On the other hand, human sciences deal with scientific knowledge about human
behaviour in a certain context (cultural, social, etc) but verification and validation in the field of
human sciences discord with the norms employed by natural sciences and are more open to
personal interpretation - peer review is the only validation one can get. This claim is in accord
with Thomas Kuhn's work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", where he elaborates that peer
review is the most valuable asset of the scientific community, but with the strong condition that
1
Descartes, René, “Meditations on first philosophy“,1641
2
http://www.experiment-resources.com/falsifiability.html

2. Aldo Baldani Topic no. 5 dqf582 (000618-002)
2
the parties involved remain disinterested, in terms of political and financial gain, for which a
good example would be the theory introduced by University professor Peter d'Adamo3
.
The standard procedure in the verification of the theory demands approval from an assemblage
of acknowledged experts, having insight in the same empirical data. However incongruous this
may seem, in natural sciences, an assemblage of acknowledged experts may be needed to
ascertain an empirical result. The phenomenon of global warming best describes the
confrontation of two sides within the scientific community each claiming different causes, but
both using the same data. The main difference between the two is that fewer disagreements
occur among subcommunities of natural sciences due to a much higher tangibility of evidence,
in comparison to the human sciences where raw data is subject to different perspectives based
on personal discernment.
The claims above relate to the previously mentioned peer review on which I will further
elaborate in the context of human sciences. Many disciplines are less intuitively dichotomized,
such as the fields of psychology, ethics, and many others. Can these be considered as sciences
at all? Even though the scientific community concurs on this matter, I feel a strong appeal to
question their authority since my point of view is one of an average knower that has to make, as
Descartes suggested, a presupposition to believe the claims of the acknowledged scientific
body. Thus, I must object to the TOK question itself since the designated interlocutor is not
specified - what is convincing to some is not to others - meaning the average knower and the
expert part ways in their academic backgrounds and therefore their conclusive abilities. To
corroborate these claims, I shall bring to bear the recent events in Lybia relating to
controversial air raids committed by Muammar Gaddafi4
. So in this example, it is clear that the
confusion is even present among the experts who when lacking evidence, let public opinion
form itself only on the basis of sporadical information set out through the media - in that sense,
the difficulty of finding a piece of information convincing is omnipresent for both the average
knower and the expert in the field.
3
The theory suggests an important relation of blood types and a recommended diet. It hasn't been corroborated
by any of his peers and might bring the average knower to endanger his health.
4
The world's media claimed that Gaddafi was to be blamed for the air raids, but the Russian military claimed that
the air raids never occurred according to their satellites.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irqjQelin-Y (Russia Today)

3. Aldo Baldani Topic no. 5 dqf582 (000618-002)
3
The behaviour of the average knower, that isn't closely related to the fields of science, clearly
shows how people tend to think they understand more about theories than they actually do, thus
letting themselves be "convinced" by the results suggested by the scientific method.
Another example of such is the Asch conformity experiment in the field of human
science that is psychology, where the goal was to deduce the frequency of the individual
conforming to the majority. In most cases, results pointed towards the individual eventually
opting for an answer which was more than obviously false, under the influence of "the
conspirated herd" and indicate a "sheep-like" symptom as suggested by psychology lecturer
Saul MacLeod5
.
Many other real-life examples are proof of human conformity in line with the latter. I have
myself experienced such compliance with a "science hoax" that is the scrambled text
transmitted world-wide by the means of email forwards, a supposed research summary from
Cambridge University. Thus it is obvious that people consider any information to be
convincing in respect to expert claims and opinions, no matter if the expert is the actual source
of information, or if his name is used in a fraudulent manner.
Such conformity can be explained from the point of view of science and scientific issues in
general. Namely, as mentioned earlier, science can hardly be verified by the average knower.
So one is impelled in believing in science in order to catch a glimpse at understanding how the
world functions. This brings up another interesting affair and that is the merging of science
with other sociological terms in order to facilitate the general understanding of science i.e. by
placing it in a context, for instance the religious one6
.
Since my previous claims and examples on peer review and conformity suggested that
any theory as convincing as it may have seemed can be proven wrong even though possibly
valid, reality is exasperatingly questionable. As suggested by René Descartes, another set of
beliefs that is impossible to verify is reality itself, which can thus be defined as an axiom or
general concordat, commonly accepted by both the average knower and expert in the field. So
5
The experiment was conducted in the manner that a group of testees was to choose two lines of the same
length, but all of them were actors making wrong choices on purpose, except the one truly tested individual,
unaware of the real purpose of the experiment. "Over the 18 trials about 75% of participants conformed at least
once and 25% of participant never conformed". - http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html
6
The expert physicist Gerald Schroeder's book "Science of God" was an attempt to merge religion and science. It
is an example where an expert of his own field, physics, indulges in the unravelling of "proof" out of his range of
expertise, and thus creating a work of pseudo-science. The cause of the average readers' credulousness is thus
the apparent use of the scientific method, their inability to verify his calculations and if religious, their
unconditional belief in God.

4. Aldo Baldani Topic no. 5 dqf582 (000618-002)
4
how can I know what is real? Why do I believe the things I believe? These questions are one of
the core issues of epistemology, a branch of philosophy. As I implied, Descartes attempted to
answer these questions in a philosophical treatise called "Meditations on first philosophy"7
,
where he realizes that "I am, I exist" must be valid every time it is expressed.
Thus, like Descartes, I can claim with reason that I exist, but how can I know that anything
outside of myself exists? The answer is: I don't. I can only suppose that some of my perceptions
such as sight, smell and touch are accurate i.e. they are reflecting reality or I would be unable to
search for knowledge since I would not have the means to perceive reality. In other words I
would be lost. I may be wrong, but I have no choice, at least initially to presume that I am not.
Science is, in fact, equally imperfect as us and our peer review methods but we tend to
self-correct by the means of new hypothesis and future research. Anyways, we believe that the
fundamental purpose of a theory is its ability to predict, and that could be a partial cause of our
conformity. On the other hand, if your beliefs are formed in disagreement with the norms of
science, you would be choosing to disregard scientific authority. If you were to seek for a
response, what would you consider it to be - a knowledgeable guess or an instinctive response?
Whatever your choice might be, it will most definitely be less veracious than a scientific
theory. That choice is bound to confuse you and leave you without a solid opinion, especially if
it were pondered upon from the viewpoint of an average knower. To conclude I can say that in
my opinion science needs to be constantly monitored in order to keep up with its innovations
and theories. Returning to my Wikipedia example from the first part of my essay I can
conclude that no matter how controversial it may be, it is perhaps the best way to inform both
the average knower and the expert on the current trends of science. Thus science, in its nature
and vast set of rituals, contributes to the epistemic culture of making itself authoritative or in
other words “convincing”.
Word Count: 1545
7
Descartes, René, “Meditations on first philosophy“, 1641

5. Aldo Baldani Topic no. 5 dqf582 (000618-002)
5
Bibliography:
1. Descartes, René, “Meditations on first philosophy“(1641), translation by John
Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch, Cambridge University Press,
1996.
2. Kuhn, Thomas, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", University Of Chicago Press,
3rd edition, 1996.
3. Schroeder, Gerald, "Science of God", Broadway Books, 1998.
The websites were certified as operating last on the 26th of February 2012
4. http://www.experiment-resources.com/falsifiability.html
5. http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irqjQelin-Y (Gadaffi air raids, Russia Today)