Episode 63. Let's look more specifically at the theory laden character of science with regards to social factors. Science is practiced within a scientific community. And this community embraces a paradigm. In other words, there is a foundational theory that all scientists accept. For example, evolution is the paradigm accepted by biologists today. As a consequence, new scientific data is filtered through the paradigm. And in this way the paradigm directs the interpretation of the data. Society at large is another social factor. Science is influenced by the social needs and the values of our society. For example, the discovery of the telescope in 1609 was for military purposes, so enemies could be seen sooner. Space travel in the 1960s was influenced by the US USSR Cold War. And even the Internet, first arose for the military. Sadly, it seems we are at our most creative when we are at war with one another. To be sure, social factors influence science but there are no post-modern excesses. Science does not equal sociology. Scientific discoveries and revolutions do occur. For example, science moved from geocentricity to heliocentricity in the 17th century. Why is this the case? It is because the physical world dictates the discoveries of science. It must be noted that society can retard or accelerate the pace of scientific discovery. But society does not control scientific truth, why? Again, it's because the physical world dictates to us the facts of nature. Personal factors also contribute to the theory laden character of science. Science is practiced by fallible and limited people. In addition, science is influenced by human values and judgement. For example, in physics, beauty and parsimony, that is, the idea of simplicity, are values that are used in formulating theories. When a mathematical formula is beautiful and parsimonious, there's a good chance it is true. It's important to underline that science is not only the application of strict logic. It also includes personal judgement and the operation of sonnet, that is tacit, categories. This is often called the art of science. Let me offer some examples. Personal skill is defined as the application of several rules which are not known as such by the person following them. For example, when you are riding a bike, are you aware you adjust the curvature of your bicycle's path in proportion to the ratio of your unbalance over the square of your speed? I sure don't. Or, another example is language. Are you aware of the rules of grammar when you speak? and this is also the case when working in a lab. Scientists learn by example of authority. Just being surrounded by other scientists is influencing us in ways that we are not fully aware. It is like an intellectual osmosis. Personal intuition is another factor influencing science. It includes so call flashes of genius, illuminating insights and hunches. These don't arise from the simple use of logic. An excellent example of this is when Einstein at only 16 years of age gets an intuition about the theory of relativity. The theory did not arrive through the application of strict logic. Einstein comments about this intuition in supplementary quote 12. To the surprise of many people, personal trust plays a significant role in science. Scientists trust and believe that the physical world really exists. This is a belief in realism. And that we're not trapped in a computer program like in the movie the Matrix. They also believe in the paradigm of their scientific discipline in order to set up experiments. And scientists trust the laws of nature and the reputability. In particular, scientists trust that no god, or gods, or demons, tinker with natural processes. To be sure, personal factors influence science, but there are no post-modern excesses. Science does not equal a personal whatever. Why? Again it's because the physical world dictates to us the facts of nature and it even shape our skills, intuition and trust. End of episode.