Is Physics Truly Neutral?
Verification:
Physics knowledge is considered true if it can be proven in accordance with natural reality.
For example: scientific experiments can be repeated and yield the same results by anyone.
Falsification:
Scientific statements must be able to be challenged or tested for error.
This distinguishes science from non-scientific knowledge (e.g., opinions or personal beliefs).
This principle underlies the claim that science is objective and neutral, as it does not involve emotion or subjective interpretation.
Thomas Kuhn’s View on Scientific Paradigms
- Physics does not develop in a linear or absolute manner.
- Kuhn stated that science evolves through paradigm shifts—that is, dominant frameworks of thought in a given era that can change over time.
- Example:
- Scientists are not neutral when building knowledge because they work within certain paradigms, often without realizing it.
- The Consequence:
- What is considered “scientific truth” does not stand independently but is tied to historical, cultural, and scholarly contexts.
Challenges to the Neutrality of Science
- Physics is often regarded as neutral due to its systematic and rational methods, but in reality:
- Scientific knowledge is never completely free from values or ideology.
- There is involvement of mental constructs, metaphysical assumptions, and the values of the scientific community.
- Thinkers like Michel Foucault have shown how narratives of power and ideology can infiltrate scientific practice.
- Jean-François Lyotard also criticized modern knowledge for losing its grand narrative and merely pursuing practical goals rather than ultimate truth.
Although physics appears objective, in reality it is not entirely neutral. History, assumptions, and paradigms shape the scientific truths we accept. This opens space for deeper reflection on the nature of scientific knowledge.
