This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
— |
teaching:tacit-knowing-and-the-challenge-of-science [2019/01/21 12:04] (current) seanburns created |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ====== Tacit Knowing and the Challenge to Science ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | There are a number of ways to read | ||
+ | [Polanyi](http:// | ||
+ | are some historical and political angles to *The Tacit Dimension* that | ||
+ | relate to the pursuit of science and knowledge and to restrictions on | ||
+ | freedom by the state or by other entities to pursue those activities. | ||
+ | Polanyi also worked during a period of the 20th century that saw great | ||
+ | upheaval, massive wars, and a rise in totalitarianism that in some ways | ||
+ | mirrors the kind of nationalism and demagoguery that is showing its face | ||
+ | today across the world. It would be interesting to explore these aspects | ||
+ | of Polanyi' | ||
+ | Polanyi' | ||
+ | simply bracket out those aspects and focus on what the knowledge | ||
+ | management (KM) literature has taken off with---the idea that "we can | ||
+ | know more than what we can tell." | ||
+ | |||
+ | Each of us will have our own interests in where KM intersects with our | ||
+ | areas of pursuit. For me, it is hard to escape how *tacit knowing* | ||
+ | impacts the pursuit of science and, inclusive of that, scholarly | ||
+ | communication and the conduct of scientific discourse. And this is | ||
+ | because, unlike some [skeptics](http:// | ||
+ | scholarly communication literature, I hold the view that science is only | ||
+ | as successful as the scholarly publishing system. That is, our primary | ||
+ | way to communicate scientific knowledge is through the written text, the | ||
+ | documentation, | ||
+ | unhealthy, then our pursuit of science, globally and writ-large, | ||
+ | suffers. | ||
+ | |||
+ | With this in mind, we can relate the implications attached to *tacit | ||
+ | knowing* to some modern developments. There is an increasing number of | ||
+ | researchers, | ||
+ | called [open science](https:// | ||
+ | of the arguments put forth in favor of a process that *opens* science | ||
+ | includes claims that an open science results in a more [efficient and | ||
+ | productive system](http:// | ||
+ | advantage of web and internet technologies, | ||
+ | better transparency, | ||
+ | is better at attributing other scientists' | ||
+ | say that an open science is the full, or nearly full, realization of the | ||
+ | [inherent norms of scientific | ||
+ | practice](https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | Within this rhetoric among the proponents of open science lies the idea | ||
+ | that an open science results in a science that is more scientific. The | ||
+ | key idea here is that science practiced openly will be more available | ||
+ | for critique, review, judgment, and so forth and as such, its | ||
+ | epistemological claims can more easily be | ||
+ | [falsified](http:// | ||
+ | [verified](http:// | ||
+ | usually, | ||
+ | [reproducibility](http:// | ||
+ | replication tests. Thus, and at the very least, there are ideas inherent | ||
+ | in the open science movement that imply that science is not science | ||
+ | unless it is open and it is not true unless it is reproducible, | ||
+ | very mechanical sense. But, these are questionable and *testable* | ||
+ | claims, which demand a path for moving forward---a path that requires of | ||
+ | us to test the validity of open science and the premises upon which rest | ||
+ | our ability to document and codify the processes involved in the conduct | ||
+ | of scientific pursuits. That is, to say that open science is better | ||
+ | science requires us to test that claim, scientifically. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus, there are significant epistemological and also | ||
+ | [commensurability](https:// | ||
+ | issues that are simply not acknowledged by the open science community. | ||
+ | Pertinent to this is one basic issue: the [criterion of | ||
+ | demarcation](http:// | ||
+ | That is, what criterion do we use to identify science from what is not | ||
+ | science (or pseudoscience)? | ||
+ | can tell" means there are limits to what we can communicate, | ||
+ | science is about being better at communicating scientific work, then | ||
+ | even under a better model of scholarly and scientific communication | ||
+ | there will always be an upper bound limit on what can be falsified, | ||
+ | verified, or reproduced via scientific documentation. This means there | ||
+ | will never be a complete guarantee that scientific claims can be trusted | ||
+ | via the scholarly communication system. There is always something | ||
+ | intrinsic in our scientific knowing that is beyond what we can tell. | ||
+ | |||
+ | What is also not fully acknowledged are other ideas about the | ||
+ | demarcation of science---issues related to *problem-solving* (ala | ||
+ | [Kuhn](http:// | ||
+ | (ala | ||
+ | [Merton](https:// | ||
+ | Here we can refer to, I think, one of the best passages (pp. 64-66) of | ||
+ | Polanyi' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Thus the scientific interest---or scientific value---of a contribution | ||
+ | > is formed by three factors: its *exactitude*, | ||
+ | > importance*, | ||
+ | > 66). | ||
+ | |||
+ | In other words, Polanyi argues that science is demarcated not just by | ||
+ | its truthfulness, | ||
+ | in the right *theoretical* way. This brings us back to | ||
+ | [Merton' | ||
+ | transmission of not just scientific knowing to the next generation of | ||
+ | scientists, but also of scientific *taste*. Let me re-quote Merton: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > The role of outstanding scientists in influencing younger associates | ||
+ | > is repeatedly emphasized in the interviews with \[Nobel\] laureates. | ||
+ | > Almost invariably they lay great emphasis on the importance of | ||
+ | > problem-finding, | ||
+ | > strong conviction that what matters most in their work is a developing | ||
+ | > sense of taste, of judgment, in seizing upon problems that are of | ||
+ | > fundamental importance (p. 453). | ||
+ | |||
+ | I am not a skeptic about scientific documentation, | ||
+ | raises very interesting and serious challenges about the conduct and | ||
+ | dissemination of science, and as well as any kind of knowledge that must | ||
+ | be taught and passed from one generation to the next, from teacher to | ||
+ | student, or from co-worker to co-worker. This is the task that Polanyi | ||
+ | has placed before us. | ||
+ | </ | ||