sign in sign up
<<
Home , Instrumentalism, The Structure of Science

1 GLOBAL JOURNAL OF VOL 8, NO. 1&2, 2009: 1-9 COPYRIGHT© BACHUDO CO. LTD PRINTED IN NIGERIA. ISSN 1596-6232 www.globaljournalseries.com ; [email protected] INSTRUMENTALISM IN SCIENCE: COMMENTS AND CRITICISMS

ELIJAH OKON JOHN (Received 8, April 2010; Revision Accepted 17, May 2010)

ABSTRACT

The affinity between our perception of ultimate and our judgement of what we find in the world with respect to the method of science cannot be contravened. That means, if science must be result oriented, then there must be a definite method for achieving that aim. But it must be said here that the method of science may not be codified. Thus, we shall define as the decision rules that guide the scientist in making his decisions or a perceived system of procedural rules. Against this backdrop, this paper attempts to defend the thesis that instrumentalism can and should, in , be accepted as a method of scientific investigation.

KEYWORD: science, system, instrumentalism, method.

INTRODUCTION theories), have been accused of being relativists According to Morris and Pai (143), the (people who believe that things like and philosophical colossus of our age, by all morality depend on the individuals or cultures) measure, is the scientific philosophy of even though many instrumentalists such as Karl instrumentalism sometimes called Popper are believers in sturdy objective realism. experimentalism and/or erroneously labeled . This is because instrumentalism is BACKGROUND INFORMATION only one of the tenets of pragmatism. Morton Customarily, Galileo is considered the father of White (13) classifies instrumentalism as one of the scientific tradition. Although it is difficult to the most popular philosophies in the world. As a locate the origin of so nebulous a thing as an philosophy, instrumentalism is relatively young, intellectual movement, but there seems to have stretching back to less than a hundred years. It been an epoch in time when human minds took a is, however, the systematic expression of a new turn. This epoch, the later part of the movement that began much earlier. But as an sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, serves outgrowth of pragmatism, instrumentalism shares in retrospect somehow as a “Great Divide” or some , terms, and even intellectual watershed in the historic course of exponents with pragmatism. That does not in any human thought. On one side is the reliance on way suggest that the two terms are one and the logical, selfevident and a priori truth; while on the same thing as some authors like Titus and Smith other side is the reliance on experience and overt (462, 542) suggest. phenomena. Through the words of a brilliant As earlier observed, instrumentalism commentator on the , Herbert relates closely to pragmatism. And this Dingle, one can assess the magnitude of this methodological viewpoint often contrasts with Shift in intellectual orientation. According to , which defines theories as Dingle, the shift began with: specially being more or less true. However, instrumentalism is more of a pragmatic approach The natural assumption that the to science, information and theories than an earth was the centre of the universe ontological statement. Often times a fundamental characteristic of instrumentalists (people who hold that scientific Greek thought, which is at variance theory is only an instrument for yielding correct with the scientific outlook (224). predictions), just like pragmatists (people who Based on Dingle’s view, it would be recalled that emphasize results and solutions more than in the sixteenth century, Copernicus had

ELIJAH OKO JOH, Department of Philosophy Uniuyo Uyo Akwa Ibom State Nigeria . 2 ELIJAH OKO JOH ventured to change the status quo by transferring predictions, which follow constitute the meaning the centre of the universe from the earth to the of the . In other words, what is known is that sun. By the time of Galileo, some three quarters which works for the prediction of the future of century later, it had become clear that there satisfactorily. Epistemologically, truth is known as was no need for any spheres at all (Dingle, 255 what is useful to believe or what leads to a 230). successful prediction. Based on the above, The above fact show that the Aristotelian instrumentalism is a philosophy that has was actually at work: starting with experience, consequence, verification, and presupposed and “selfevident” principles and workability as its crucial tenets. then attempting to make the of natural phenomena conform to them. In contrast SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY VIA to this procedure was the method of science INSTRUMENTALISM tagged the GalileanNewtonian philosophy, which Before we move on to proffering a way out of the emphasized the application of force for problematic of scientific methodology via acceleration and velocity. instrumentalism, a brief procedural note is This attempt brought in necessary at this point. Works of science were apparently boundless measure. But this was not intended to be a theorizing or an analytic logically outrageous from the standpoint of affair. This, probably, is the reason that emphasis Aristotelian method. As observed above, the in our own time has shifted from realism and Aristotelian general principles were conceived a other kindred philosophies, which maintain the priori , independently of phenomena and possibility of defining, locating and applying phenomena were distorted at liberty so as to values that science contain irrespective of the exemplify them. The problem at hand was how to wishes or purpose of human beings, to “save the phenomena”. The basic principles instrumentalism. This explains why John themselves could not be threatened; rather it was (2000:118), holds that “The modern focus rests the phenomena that stood in need of salvation greatly on experimentalism which traces the (John, 2006: 157). justification of our perception of reality to It should also be noted that consequences”. The conception of truth, in the instrumentalism, though an , realist view is somewhat dynamic but strongly is an outgrowth of British . It arose as final, perfect and ‘eternal’. In religious a reaction against the Hegelian philosophy terminology, it may be identified with God’s prevailing in America in the late nineteenth and thoughts, and with those thoughts, which, as early twentieth centuries. Instrumentalists at that rational begins we share with God. period felt that such philosophy was not result But contrary to the scientific realism, oriented, and had deviated from solving man’s instrumentalist reality is the moving, changing, problems which should be the duty of philosophy. and “processinflux” event spoken of as To rectify the problems, instrumentalists came up experience. In this sense, instrument or with a philosophy of action to meet the needs of experience is the ultimate grounds for human man and that of the society. existence. It is both the originator and the It must be mentioned that beliefs found in Supreme Court of whatever we do or say. today’s instrumentalism first occurred in the Perhaps, it is with this understanding that teachings of Heraclitus and the Sophists. And in Ndubuisi (82) classifies instrumentalism as “a the later time some of those beliefs were found in more developed perspective when compared the teachings of and Auguste with realism and relativism”. Comte. These beliefs were modified and adopted by modern instrumentalists. Thus, WHAT IS INSTRUMENTALISM? instrumentalists try to provide the foundation of A contemporary British philosopher, Bertrand science (or knowledge in general) by making Russell (564), defines instrumentalism as an sure that whatever is believed or accepted is in attempt in the recent times to escape from agreement with practical consequences. This subjectivism. Ozumba (6) agrees with W. F. means, the value of any idea is determined by Bynum in defining instrumentalism as: the consequences produced when the idea is The view that a is translated into action for prediction. nothing more than a device or The prediction thesis holds that in order instrument for yielding correct to determine the meaning of an idea, it must be predictions about the course of put into test: the consequences, simply put, nature, and that theories must INSTRUMENTALISM IN SCIENCE: COMMENTS AND CRITICISMS 3

therefore be assessed not as true or attempt to explicate the meaning of false, but only as effective or instrumentalism, one cannot but agree with John ineffective in prediction(209). Dewey when he asserts that instrumentalism is:

According to Alozie, an attempt to a precise logical theory of concepts, Instrumentalism is the philosophical judgement and inference in their tenet which states that scientific various functions by considering theories or theories of any type are primarily how thought functions in not strictly speaking true or false, the experimental determinations of but are to be regarded as tools for future consequences (463). making predictions (156). From the above definitions, it is clear that In the , instrumentalism is instrumentalism is a philosophy of action. Like the view that concepts and theories are merely pragmatism, it shares in the working definition of useful instrument whose worth is measured not what that works or on the instrument that helps in by whether the concepts and theories are true or predicting the future, rather than on empty false (or correctly depict reality), but by how theorizing exercise. effective they are in explaining and predicting Instrumentalists believe that theories are phenomena. In ethics, instrumentalism necessary weapons in science. But they do not resembles utilitarianism in defining moral rules see it appropriate to evaluate theories with only as tools for moral good. Thus, the moral categories of truth or falsehood. The code arising from a given population is simply understanding here is that instrumentalism collection of rules that are useful to the accepts theories as instrument for prediction, and population. was perhaps the first this means that it is the ability of theories in person to suggest that there might not be any serving their predictive function that makes a intrinsic or metaphysical value of rules, but that theory valuable. This shows, therefore, that it is they are simply secular and natural rules that are the end, which is prediction that justifies the humanmade. means, which is the theory itself (Ozumba, 66). In politics, instrumentalism is associated Some instrumentalists such as Hesse with a view first suggested by and would argue that theories possess the status of later by the Chicago school of economics, which instruments, tools or calculating devices in issues perceives politics simply as a means to an end. relating to . The assumption inherent Milton Friedman is noted as the one who is this view is that theories are made use of to paraphrased the viewpoint by explaining that he relate and systematize observational statements. had no ideological love for freemarkets, but he Predictions could be made in the process; but the might, as simply be a socialist if socialism fulfilled issue of truth does not arise. It is meaningless to the ends most people seem to want. talk about truth in this matter. Predictions, to the The fallibilistic epistemology of adds instrumentalists, exhaust the goal of science. To to this that one should empirically measure them, as NewtonSmith (33) remarks, theoretical all politics and verify whether they fulfill their sentences are incapable of being true or false. goals, and try to falsify our politics, critique them The reason for this, according to him, is that and come up with better ways to reach the ends. theories lack meaning and truthvalue. In , instrumentalism is the The thrust of the instrumentalists was brainchild of Daniel Denneth. It holds that influenced by a strong form of . propositional attitudes such as belief are not They could not successfully verify the truth of concepts on which one can base scientific theoretical sentences, which is that investigations of the mind and brain, but that these sentences can neither be true nor false. To acting as if other beings do have beliefs is often them, scientific laws and theories are nothing but successful strategy. For example, behaving as if instrument to derive observational predictions the chessplaying computer has the belief that from other observational statements (Gierdymin, taking the queen will give it a major advantage is 182). a successful strategy, despite the fact that few According to the instrumentalists, the people would argue that simple electronic method of scientific investigation cannot yield devices have beliefs as one normally thinks of anything more than tentative or revisable them (John, 2006:169). Looking at the above hypothesis at the long run. Hence, they insist that 4 ELIJAH OKO JOH experimental findings cannot also be said to determined. Therefore, an instrumentalist, contradict scientific laws, just as crucial according to Feyerabend, may even see that : experiment aimed at refuting theories is impossible. Again, Gierdymin (183) has shown The functions of words like how Poincare, one of the earliest “gravitation”, “force” and instrumentalists, sees scientific theories only as “gravitational field” are exhausted by terminological conventions, useful for their giving an abbreviated systematizing observational data in the way a description of the spatiotemporal catalogue systematizes books in a library, but behaviour of physical objects having no descriptive empirical content. This (1964:280). proves that as far as theories are concerned, the instrumentalists do not see them as articles of According to John (2006:174), these and other faith. terms like “magnetic field intensity”, “true”, Furthermore, instrumentalists submit that “coordinate”, “electric conductibility”, etc cannot scientific progress, even in astronomy, can only be checked to verify whether they correspond to be achieved by tolerance. That is, there should physical . This in essence shows the be a kind of situation where everyone should feel indispensability of in our theory free to propose an alternative to the existing construction. It is even possible for an theories through greater simplicity by avoiding instrumentalist to deny the existence of these friction in all its ramifications. Old theories should objects and simply see these objects or words however be replaced by “better ones without any merely as instruments meant for the ordering and of the theories being either conclusively refuted predicting (of) . or demonstrated” (Gierdymin, 188). This in actual It must also be noted that fact, makes for progress in science. instrumentalism denies that theories are truth The instrumentalists do not see physical valuable, and that they should be treated like a laws as even true; they see the laws of physics black box into which one feeds observed data as neither true nor false but as an approximation. and through which one produces observable Physical laws, they say, are always undermined prediction. This requires distinction between on the strength of the evidence that we have. To theory and observation and within each type of this extent, it is only wise to say that they are further distinction between terms and statements indeterminate. They (physical laws) are is required. Let us take some examples: increasingly undergoing modifications and observable statements have their menacing fixed improvements. Thus, those factors that were not by observable truth conditions, such as, “the adequately considered previously will from time litmus paper is red”, while observation terms, on to time, be receiving attention in addition to the the other hand, have their meaning fixed by their new ones that are emerging. referring to observable things or properties, for Also, instrumentalists maintain that instance, “red”. common sense laws are simple generalizations Furthermore, theoretical statements have of everyday experience. It is therefore easy to their meaning fixed by their function within a determine if they are true or not. There is no theory and are not truthvaluable. An example is, difference between its language and our “the solution is acidic”. However, theoretical everyday experience. We can thus determine its terms have their meaning fixed by their truth or falsity. In contrast, physical laws are systematic function within a theory and do not formulated in a highly idealized and precise refer to any observable thing or property, for language of mathematics. Predictions made from example, “acidic”. Though one may think that them assume the same idealized mathematical “acidic” refers to a real property in an object, but form. We cannot as a result append “true or the truth is that the meaning of the term can only false” status to such laws. be explained by reference to a theory about Another issue involved in physical laws is acidity, in contrast to “red” which is a property that there are always the measuring procedures, you can observe. From the above explanation, it and as such the outcome is always impressive. means those statements that mix both the For this reason, Duhem states, “physical theories theoretical terms and observation terms are are merely means of classifying and bringing observation statements, since their totality cannot together approximate laws” (Gierdymin, 199). be directly observed. The objects that theories in physics deal with are There is some argument against this too complex and imprecise to be correctly distinction, however, as it confuses “non INSTRUMENTALISM IN SCIENCE: COMMENTS AND C RITICISMS 5 theoretical” with “observable”, and likewise To Kuhn, in his Normal Science, theories “theoretical” with “observable”. For instance, the are accepted as working to solve term “gene” is a theoretical term but it can also puzzles and no attempt should be made by the be an observable term. Thus, whether a term is a scientist to falsify a theory. He further submits theoretical or not is a semantic issue, because it that the emergence of any anomalies and their involves the different ways in which the term gets accumulation can threaten the old theory and its meaning (from a theory or from an when persistent, they will lead to the collapse of observation). And whether a term is observable the old theory and the advent of a new theory, or not is an epistemic matter, because it involves which ushers in the era of what Kuhn terms as how we can come to know about it. In other the revolutionary science. To him therefore, when words, instrumentalists are of the opinion that the this paradigmshift occurs, a revolution has taken distinctions are the same, that we can only come place. And that shows how scientific method to know about something if we can understand its should be cultivated and the growth of science meaning according to truthevaluable maintained. observations. So in the above example, “gene” is For Feyerabrend, the method of science a theoretical term because, although it is should be “anything goes”. That is, no one theory observable, we cannot understand its meaning or method should be accepted in absolute finality. from observation alone. And, in fact, he is against any particular method of scientific investigation. His concern is that any method that works should be accepted as an THE CONTROVERSY instrument of scientific growth and enterprise. He It will be observed that modern definitions of accordingly accepts Popper’s position that truth, such as those of pragmatism or theories are constantly falsified and refined. instrumentalism, which are practical rather than To Lakatos, every theory has a protective contemplative, are inspired by industrialism as belt of hardcore elements that define it. In his opposed to aristocracy. This makes scientific investigative programmes, Kuhn holds instrumentalism, as a method of science, that theories are not to be abandoned like that attractive to epistemic community. Perhaps, this because there are many research programmes is what has observed in going on simultaneously. In this case, science instrumentalism when he describes it as: does not need protection (John, 2006:178). It can protect itself. But those stronger theories can A power philosophy, though not like supersede the weaker ones. And even the Nietzsche’s, a philosophy of weaker ones can also pick up at any time and individual power; it is the power of supersede the ones that were previously the community that is felt to be stronger. Unlike Kuhn, Lakatos holds that there valuable. It is this element of social are dormant scientific theories out there to be power that seems to me to make the explored. philosophy of instrumentalism From Lakatos’ point of view, this means attractive to those who are more scientific truth or knowledge is incremental. That impressed by our new control over is, it keeps on revealing. There is nothing like natural forces than by the limitations absolute scientific knowledge or truth and that no to which that control is still subject scientific theory should be rejected as every (827). theory is a potential viable theory. Here it can be said that Lakatos and Feyerabend are scientific Reading through Popper’ Conjectures and realists, that is, “anything goes”. In this case, Refutations (1969), Kuhn’s The Structure of Feyerabend, in particular, is against scientific (1970), Feyerbrand’s method. This is why he is against the “tyranny of Problems of Empiricism (1981), Lakatos’ and science”. Musgrave’s Criticism and the Growth of For Quine, theories or methods of Knowledge (1970), etc one will discover that they science are just empirically underdetermined. all have different opinions on how science grows That suggests that information that is reached by through the instrumentality of theories. For our senses is the foundation of any scientific instance, Popper is of the view that there is no method. But in a clever way, he holds that such end in refining theories as new facts arise. In line information is inconclusive and will ever remain with Popper’s position, it means that scientific inconclusive. Two things should be noted from inventions and theories are conjectures. Quine’s opinion: first, scientific knowledge is 6 ELIJAH OKO JOH necessarily inconclusive. Second, this logical instrument for organizing our experience inconclusivity has and will always transcend the and for ordering experimental laws”. observable entities. In this case both the Thus, according to the instrumentalist observed and the unobserved complement each position, scientific theories are not generalized other for a complete method or view of science. statements about any real observable state of This is the instrument for complete knowledge of affairs in the world, not about actual relations. science. Rather, they are concerned with computation Furthermore, the controversy that rules similar to logical rules of inference, with surrounds a scientific methodology is a serious which we can order and organize human one among philosophers of science. For experience. They are therefore said to serve as instance, in the “Postscripts”, (186) instrument and technical rules for inferring again argues against any possibility or rational particular observational statements from others. consideration playing any (significant) role in an Again, Aigbodioh has, on the merit and demerit of account of theoryformation. He rather subscribes instrumentalism, observed that to subjective, psychological and idiosyncratic feelings as paramount in the process of theory This view of theories has probably formation. In other words, scientific enterprise is attracted more fellowership than any not guided by any objective, empirical fact or other, although it is beset with a definable method, but rather it is a matter of mere number of apparently arbitrary activities akin to that of religious show. Insurmountable problems In line with Kuhn, Karl Popper (1983:6) theoretical expressions do not denies the possibility of any scientific method. posses material, informative or Rather Popper submits that the only thing that descriptive content, but are like exists as “scientific method” is a continuous effort dispositional expressions, e.g. on the part of scientists to refute or falsify existing “breakable” (as against ‘broken’) theories on the basis of some possible or which need not be regarded as conceivable observations. Hence, this, according meaningless since they can yet be to Popper, cannot be said to be a method of analyzed into truthfunctional science in the real sense of the word. He statements (107, 108). concludes that they are simply a way of fixing and beliefs and provoking their There are a number of issues that acceptability in the scientific community. But the instrumentalism has tackled and which make it truth is that even when Popper is trying to deny very interesting. One of such things is the basic the possibility of any scientific method, understanding of the pervasiveness of reality. criterion is in itself a method of That is to say reality is cumbersome when science. No matter the position of different compared with what lies below phenomena. By scientists in the methodology of science, the fact this tacit “copoutism”, instrumentalism has saved is that science has a method and this is not a itself from the elusiveness of the real picture of hidden matter as it manifests in our daytoday reality. The deficit of this understanding on the experiences, activities and conversations logical constitutes a serious mistake. (Aigbodioh, 25). Also science is not an exercise Again, prediction and precision are other that is done with imagination devoid of logical important factors that instrumentalism has added rigour, critical analysis and empirical fact, as to scientific research. With prediction, a Kuhn would want us to believe. researcher is able to put in a hypothetical form to the result he anticipates from the problem he is COMMENTS confronted with. In other words, there is a degree The instrumentalist view on the issue of the of expectation or result from a certain test carried cognitive status of scientific theories is a modest out by a researcher. This result may be the and pragmatic view. It clearly rejects that of the researcher, and if so it follows theoretical expressions have ontological that the research is a successful one. underpinnings and satisfied with merely From the above, it can be seen that ascertaining what the function of a theory is in the prediction is an asset in scientific investigation. It scientific enterprise. (Aigbodioh, 107). Nagel makes for easy communication of research (118) succinctly declares the thesis of result. This is to say that prediction helps the instrumentalism thus: “Theories are primarily researcher not to go into the laborious task of INSTRUMENTALISM IN SCIENCE: COMMENTS AND CRITICISMS 7 writing volumes on the outcome of the they are effectively harnessed for the prediction experiments he has embarked upon. And when of the course of nature. It has avoided the the result is coined in a very similar or exact form, tenacity of the , which accepted it makes for easy reference when the need for antimetaphysical theories as a variable key to a the application of the idea arises. Besides, any systematic interpretation of scientific scientist who wants to make reference to it for methodology. This is true because it is free from further use will do that without much constraint. It dogmatism, which stifles scientific progress. is for these and similar reasons that Science, as a rational enterprise, should measurement remains paramount in rely on the instrumentalism in the sense of experimental enterprise. prediction. This is true because the said Moreover, it can be deduced that prediction will offer useful practical orientation instrumentalism is a mature scientific method and intersubjective verifiability. Prediction, in this because it is only a mature science that exhibits way will settle puzzles, control nature and any the grounds of its prediction, namely: laws, data other conundrum of life. This is where and these can be corrected or entirely instrumentalism is relevant to scientific abandoned if they lead to false projection. methodology. However, the general ambition of science tends towards achieving accurate prediction (Ndubuisi, CRITICISMS 41, 42). But as earlier observed, there is always Aigbodioh (108, 109) has offered three objections a basis, a datum through which a scientific to the instrumentalist view. The first criticism prediction is made. leveled against instrumentalism is that the It must also be mentioned that the thrust analogy between a theory and an instrument of the logical positivism is process or theory seems to be misplaced from the standpoint of the standardization (such as observation and scientific programme of inductive confirmation) in order to establish a true picture experimentalism. Secondly, instrumentalists are of reality. But in the case of instrumentalism, the being accused of negating the fact that common basic thrust of its philosophy is the possibility of a concepts or theories do not correlate to anything successful prediction of the course of nature. in real life. To the critics, this position by Now, if reality is that which man cannot instrumentalists runs contrary to the implicit objectively describe it therefore means that a assumption that scientific theories express theory about it cannot be intersubjectively relations between properties of existing objects verified, formulated and confirmed. These by reference to ostensibly discernible objects. attitudes have further complicated the Thirdly, the characteristic of theory as complexities of reality of the logical positivists to computational rules or rules of inference is successfully formulate and confirm any theory. considered as a problem. According to the critics, Thus, instrumentalism has carefully avoided the these rules should rather be seen as accuracy of details in the formulation of theories, (explanatory) premises from which conclusions which constituted a setback to the previous ones. are drawn. In its place, instrumentalism would bother rather Another problem with instrumentalism is about the basic scientific methodology, namely: the laborious avoidance of the rigorous attitude predictive efficacy of theories (Ozumba, 68). This before a theory is formulated. This makes predictive ability, to my mind, makes instrumentalism both a scientific “dropoutism” instrumentalism, a better option to preceding and and “copoutism”. Dropoutism in that it tends to kinship methodologies. become disengaged with the whole scientific Instrumentalism is ethnomethodological procedures, and copoutism because it has in . It does not perceive reality as refused the whole scientific investigation, which is something far removed from man. by its very nature, committed to the normal Instrumentalism rather adopts the Protagoras’ scientific means. “man is the measure of all things” as its guiding Lastly, there is a serious problem with principle. Thus, it cannot be seen as a projection. For instance, Horner and Westacott philosophical noninvolvism, because it uses (102) have observed that there is no valid or humanistic means to advance science. rational basis for supposing that correlation we Furthermore, instrumentalist’s non have observed in the past will continue in the involvement in the over–exaltation of theory is a future. This problem of projection and its good case to be examined. This is true because assumption had earlier caused David Hume to theories as we all know only make sense when regard the socalled necessary connection 8 ELIJAH OKO JOH between two things or events as mere fiction that openness. Instrumentalism as opposed to the we foist on nature. Well, this uncertainty problem largely dogmatic and “authoritarian” posture of commonly associated with instrumentalism is not many of the methods of science in implementing a unique problem of science, but rather an issue the present scientific principles is more constantly relating to the whole human advantageous. In this circumstance, one cannot enterprise. Human minds are always too pretend that the ideas of scientific methodologies predictive of the future, when, in fact, it is not the peddled before the advent of instrumentalism are case. This is what social scientists would call a anything to write home about, today. They were psychological necessity, which is not good formulated in error. Instrumentalists, on their part, enough for science. For example: that every have no right to make any scientific methodology President of the United States has been a white sacrosanct by their refusal to reject error. The male has no necessary correlation between the conceptual and fundamental errors heretofore office and the qualities to suggest any logical accepted must be replaced by the instrumentalist prediction for future Presidents of the States. The view. This is where instrumentalism shares its Obama (of 2008) has rendered ideal with realists’ thesis. such prediction meaninglessly useless. Having seen the objections against CONCLUSION instrumentalism and without necessarily going In conclusion, one may say that the entire into detailed counter arguments, it is proper to knowing process is an openended, ongoing, and say that the charges against instrumentalism as restless activity of human beings. By this time, expressed by a representative spokesman, one may begin to appreciate why such an Aigbodioh, are not altogether groundless. They endeavour is exasperating to many people. It has are caused basically by three factors, namely: no “anchor to windward”, no absolute to tie to, lack of a proper understanding of the dynamics of no quiet harbour of truth where testing can be instrumentalism, farcical approach to permanently halted. There is no restingplace instrumentalism, and the reflection of where a person can say once and for all, “I know contemporary anxieties rather than a deeper this for sure”. The element of contingency and examination of instrumentalism. relativity so pervasive in this doctrine is Having said that, I want to quickly add in emotionally unacceptable to great many summary that the criticisms are not strong individuals. They cannot stand the strain of open enough to weaken instrumentalism; in fact, I see endedness in the sphere of thought and belief to these criticisms as mere academic exercise. avoid premature closure of the method of They are not substantial enough to effectively science. And their rejection of this philosophy is affect instrumentalism as a method of science. in a sense understandable. For instrumentalism After all, instrumentalism has openness, one is a “toughminded” outlook. One has to have a distinguishing mark of a sound scientific method, thick intellectual and moral skin to manage it. But as its watchword. It is open and receptive to new instrumentalism, like any other philosophic point ideas especially in the face of contemporary, of view, is interested not necessarily in what is overwhelming and compelling experiences. comfortable. The point is that it is interested in Above all, instrumentalism subjects its the actual situation in which people live: To beliefs to selfcriticism and equally, takes in good retreat to “more secure” doctrines is, as William faith criticisms form others. This is because James always put it, “a failure of nerve” (92). instrumentalism, as a method of science, The great advantage of instrumentalism appreciates and concretizes the simple fact that is that it is a method of knowing that is public, philosophical truths are never held in absolute available to all. Instrumentalists do not deny finality, they are very hardly accepted in methodic private experience; all they say is that it does not dogmatism. This, too, shows that the ableness of produce knowledge. This sort of experience that instrumentalism is not in doubt. It does not also is common to everyone, testable and warranted assume that its beliefs are immutable and is the only kind of experience that is capable of unchanging. Since scientists are constantly faced yielding what we call method. with new challenges, instrumentalism, which is For this reason “community” plays an meant to serve scientific enterprise better, has important role in instrumentalist methodology. equally made its method open to keep pace with Indeed, many instrumentalists speak of the new challenges. “uncoerced community of persuasion” as the Recent global experiences have taught central criterion of truth. Science, one will note, is the scientific community the lesson of greater of this general character; it is open, it has this INSTRU MENTALISM IN SCIENCE: COMMENTS AND CRITICISMS 9 public knowing procedure to which many people, Ethics”, in Sapientia: Journal of in communication with one another, contribute. Philosophy. Vol. 1, No. 1, 2000. And there must exist some common persuasion among them before anything can be labeled as a John, Elijah Okon. Man and Knowledge: Issues method of science. In Contemporary Philosophy. Uyo: Scholars Press, 2006. WORKS CITED Kuhn, T.. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Aigbodioh, Jack A. Philosophy of Science: Chicago: The University of Chicago Issues and Problems. Ibadan: Hope Press, 1970. Publishers, 1997. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. Criticism and Alozie, Princewill. . the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Calabar: University of Calabar Press, Cambridge University Press. 1970. 2004. Morris, V. C. and Pai, Young. Philosophy and the Bynum, W.F. et al, Dictionary of the History of American School. Boston; Honghton Science. London: Macmillan Press, Mifflin Company, 1976. 1981. Nagel, E. The Structure of Science: Problems in Dewey, John. “The Development of American the of Scientific Explanation. New Pragmatism” in D.D. Runnes (ed.) York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc., Twentieth Century Philosophy. New 1961. York: Basic Books, 1943. NewtonSmith, W. H. The Rationality of Science. Dingle, Herbart. “Cosmology and Science”, in London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Scientific American . 95, No. 3, 1956. Publishers, 1981.

Feyerabend, Paul. Problems of Empiricism. Ndubuisi, F. N. Contextual Issues in Scientific Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Philosophy. Lagos: Panaf Publishing 1981. House, 1997.

Feyerabend, Paul. “Realism and Ozumba, G. O. The Philosophy of Logical Instrumentalism: Comments on the Logic Positivism and the Growth of Science. of Factual Support” in Maria Bunge (ed.) Calabar: Bacos Publishers, 2001 The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy in Honour of Karl Popper. Popper, K. Conjectures and Refutations. London: London: Free Press, 1964. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.

Gierdymin, Jerzy. “Instrumentalism and Its Popper, K. Realism and the Aim of Science. Critique: A Reappraisal”, in The Boston London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., 1983. Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. XXXI, 1964. Russell, Bertrand. A History of . New York: Simon and Horner, Chris and Westacott, Emrys. Thinking Schuster, 1945. Through Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Titus, Harold H. and Smith Marilyn S. Living 2000. Issues in Philosophy. New York: D. Van Nostrand Publishers, 1974. James, William. Pragmatism and Other Essays. New York: Washington Square Press, White, Morton. The Age of Analysis. New York: 1963. New American Library Inc., 1955.

John, Elijah Okon. “The Role of Experimentalism and Existentialism as Principles of Value