Scientific Anomalies & the production of knowledge.
What can scientific anomalies tell us about the production of scientific knowledge ? Today's blog post outlines a real life situation that can be used as an example in AoK Natural Sciences, Mathematics, and various themes. We can use it to explore a few key ToK ideas:
(i) Why is knowledge categorised into AoKs, and are those divisions useful ?
(ii) Is the scientific method inherent to producing scientific knowledge ?
(iii) Does Peer Review ensure the reliability of knowledge ?
(iv) Are there self-sustaining gatekeepers imposing a knowledge hierarchy within the AoKs ?
Starting points - Robert Jahn at Princeton.
You can read background on Professor Jahn's academic history at Wikipedia - he was undoubtedly a very accomplished academic in Physics. What is of interest to us is his research in Parapsychology.
Image Citation: “Robert Jahn, Pioneer of Deep Space Propulsion and Mind-Machine Interactions, Dies at 87.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/11/30/robert-jahn-pioneer-deep-space-propulsion-and-mind-machine-interactions-dies-87.
Research in Parapsychology.
In the 1970s and 80s, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory, led by Robert Jahn, conducted a series of experiments on the so-called "anomalous effects" of human consciousness on physical systems. Essentially he was looking at an effect called Psychokinesis - the ability of the mind to affect the external physical world. These experiments, which were largely funded by the US military, aimed to investigate the possibility that human consciousness could affect the behaviour of random number generators, machines that produce sequences of random numbers.
The experiments conducted at PEAR were designed to be highly controlled and rigorously scientific, and they followed the scientific method in their approach. However, the results of these experiments were not always in line with expectations. In some cases, the results seemed to indicate that human consciousness could indeed affect the behaviour of random number generators, but in other cases, the results were inconclusive or seemed to contradict previous findings.
These anomalies at PEAR raised questions about the nature of human consciousness and its potential relationship to the physical world. Some critics argue that the anomalies observed at PEAR were the result of flaws in the experimental design or data analysis, while others suggest that they may indicate the presence of unknown forces or phenomena that are not currently understood by science.
Despite the controversy surrounding the experiments at PEAR, the work of Robert Jahn and his colleagues has contributed to our understanding of the relationship between human consciousness and the physical world. Their research has provided valuable insights into the potential capabilities of the human mind, and has sparked further investigation into the mysteries of consciousness.
How can we use this in ToK ?
ToK Question:
(i) Why is knowledge categorised into AoKs, and are those divisions useful ?
The Knowledge Frameworks of the AoKs describe why knowledge is categorised into AoKs. We look at the Scope, Perspectives and Methodology of knowledge to decide how it should be categorised into AoKs.
However, there is some dispute about these divisions (eg see the work of Basil Bernstein as explored by Suellen Shay). Jahn's work clearly shows a crossover between the Physical and Human Sciences. It also shows a deep integration between the two science AoKs and AoK Mathematics.
It could be argued that whilst the AoKs may provide us with a convenient model to organise knowledge in ToK they don't necessarily bear much correspondence with the construction and application of knowledge in the real world.
ToK Question:
(ii) Is the scientific method inherent to producing scientific knowledge ?
The Scientific Method and Scientific Knowledge are often presented as being mutually inclusive elements. ie scientific knowledge is scientific because it is produced using the scientific method. Whilst this may be the case for the vast majority of scientific knowledge there are cases in which the scientific method has not been used to produce scientific knowledge. The main reasons for this would be that either the knowledge has been discovered (sometimes accidentally), or the knowledge does not avail itself of scientific testing (such as rare events / phenomena), or the technology does not yet exist to apply scientific testing procedures.
Jahn's work was testing something beyond the normal scope / parameters of the physical sciences. It is possible that we are yet to develop the technology to test the sort of energy fields that he was interested in. The ToK point here is that knowledge production is, to a degree, limited to the technology available at the time (eg we couldn't test the effects of ultra violet lights on plants until we were able to identify and control ultra violet lights).
ToK Question:
(iii) Does Peer Review ensure the reliability of knowledge ?
Jahn showed a small significant effect over a large number of trials. Such findings would have the potential for changing the basic premises of Physics. However, his methodology was widely criticised by many of his peer physicists at the time (again you can read about this on Wikipedia). Further, many Peer Review bodies refused to review Jahn's research on the basis that it did not constitute 'science' (see this article).
As such, this does appear to show that Peer Review ensures reliability of knowledge. However, there are two immediately apparent drawbacks to this system. The first is that peer review ensures reliability within the scope by which reliability is defined at that time, in that particular discipline / AoK. The ways in which reliability is defined and tested may change by context, time and purpose.
The second concern (implication) is that the narrow definition and application of reliability may be marginalising valuable new knowledge which does not stand up to peer review. Research into such new knowledge may not be further developed due to dismissal at an early stage of development.
ToK Question:
(iv) Are there self-sustaining gatekeepers imposing a knowledge hierarchy within the AoKs ?
Jah, and the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR), experienced marginalisation and even ridicule by the scientific community, as well described in this article from the Harvard magazine Crimson,and this article from The New York Times.
We could look at such reactions as stemming from a body of practitioners who agree upon the scope and methodology of knowledge production within their AoK. On the other hand we could also consider their reactions as ensuring their hold over power and authority within their AoK - a classic gatekeepers hierarchy.
The work of Professor Jahn and the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab, provides ToK students with a rich seam of insight into the production of knowledge at the highest levels of scientific research. It is particularly useful because the participants were willing to step away from that which is deemed to be conventional in their field. It is in the contrasts with normal operations that we can sometimes best see what constitutes normal operations.
Daniel,
Lisbon, Dec 2022