state of scientific knowledge

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The state of scientific knowledge is the epistemological and philosophical summary of each current knowledge of science or of the sciences.

The ideal state of science is directly developed by every new scientific knowledge. The general state of science can only be broadly described by individual people; well-informed scientists can present the state for their narrowly limited individual science . The state of the art in science is thus constantly emerging from a totality of research , publications and scientific specialist discussions (lectures at specialist congresses , internal information, gray literature ).

The fact that there is a state of the art on a question and what it is is often established and reported by the scientists in the field concerned in consensus procedures. This scientific consensus and its communication play an important role in public and as a basis for political and legal decisions.

Philosophy of science

In contrast to pure belief , the state of science represents valid, verifiable and verifiable knowledge. These must first be identifiable and recognizable from other forms of the state of the art.

As a first rough filter, the corresponding tests include elementary methods of modeling and validation as well as elementary methods of mathematics and computer science . Valid methods of proof also follow .

The valid methods of proof are described in philosophy and epistemology and philosophy of science. They set science apart from pseudoscientific claims, political and other ideologies and opinions . The deductive proof is called strict proof. The inductive proof is indirect, it has to be corroborated by the number of checked individual cases, i.e. empirical induction. The abduction expands knowledge . A well-known means of testing scientific hypotheses is through repeatable and generalizable experiments . In contrast to pseudoscience and other ideological systems, the relentless criticism of previous knowledge is inherent in science (see metaphysics , ontology and ethics ). The state of science therefore represents current knowledge in a verifiable relationship to reality . This results in the special importance for education , but especially for global political decisions and future-oriented technologies , also for public discussion and knowledge transfer , insofar as they have consequences for the lives of many people. Examples: medicine , law , climate policy , environmental technology , technical and social risks , food production , use of energy sources , peace research , opinion-forming .

Scientific consensus

The scientific consensus is the extensive agreement among experts on the state of science: the well-considered answer to a question that is discussed on a solid basis of high-quality evidence, the accepted validity of a hypothesis or theory . The fact that there is a scientific consensus does not guarantee the truth of the state of the art. However, a documented consensus is important for political or legal decisions as well as for the public and for experts who have to implement or apply the state of the art in practice, for example in medicine.

As a rule, in order to speak of a scientific consensus, it is not necessary that all scientists in the field agree or at least not contradict it. Depending on the area and purpose for which the consensus is being determined, a majority opinion may suffice; however, a consensus can also be almost unanimous. One also speaks of a degree of consensus.

Kosolosky and Van Bouwel distinguish the akedemischen consensus , the scientists initially could achieve, and to trade alien communicated to the outside in the public interface consensus . Finally, if there is an agreement on procedures for building consensus, they speak of meta-consensus . There are various processes for building and establishing consensus internally and externally, including peer-reviewed reviews and, based on this, consensus conferences, for example those of the National Institutes of Health in the USA. Science academies formulate and publish consensus statements. Other indicators are expert surveys and the evaluation of specialist papers, for example using bibliometric methods such as the frequency of citations .

Outsider and minority opinions are not seen as a reason not to speak of a scientific consensus. A skeptical attitude and dissent play a decisive role in the progress of science. Criticizing, testing, improving and rejecting hypotheses and the formulation of alternative explanations are the engine of scientific knowledge. Beatty and Moore point out that the presence of an active, dissenting minority can actually strengthen consensus because it is a sign that the state of the art is being scrutinized further. Neglecting and repressing critical individual voices can lead to scientific progress freezing and clinging to flawed theories.

However, dissent can also be harmful, both externally, in that important political decisions are delayed, for example, and internally, in that scientists are severely hindered in their research by non-detailed objections and demands, avoid certain topics under pressure or only their results represented weakened. Biddle and Leuschner name the "constructed doubt" by the tobacco industry or the organized climate "skepticism" as examples.

For both dissent and consensus, there can be convincing scientific evidence as well as social and personal motives. In addition to material incentives, this can include the desire to find knowledge about one's own values ​​or those of one's own social environment or to avoid contradicting ones (cf. herd behavior , cognitive dissonance ), the desire for recognition or a non-conformist modern Galileo to be. The study of such social relationships is the subject of the sociology of science . As indications that a consensus actually contains currently valid knowledge, Miller mentions: visible consistency of evidence, social diversity of researchers and “social calibration”, i. H. Agreement of the scientists in essential technical terms and background assumptions.

Jurisprudence

The current state of science is gaining practical importance as a technical standard in the approval of emitting systems to ensure a certain level of protection for people and the environment.

In various laws, German law differentiates between the indefinite legal terms relating to the state of science and technology ( Section 7 (2) No. 3 AtG ), the state of the art ( Section 5 (1) No. 2 BImschG ) and the recognized rules of technology ( Section 3 (1) of the law on technical work equipment) as safety requirements that the respective systems or objects should meet in order to be officially approved.

In the Kalkar decision, the Federal Constitutional Court interprets the different legal terms and leaves the legislature a certain degree of freedom in their use. It is therefore left to the legislature to determine the technical safety requirements for the individual systems by using one or the other term in the various licensing regulations. Protection against possible damage is weighed against what is technically feasible and what is economically reasonable for the plant operator.

Based on the Kalkar decision, according to the three-step theory so called in the literature, the "state of the art" should be placed between the "state of science and research" and the "generally recognized rules of technology".

The strictest technology clause is the state of science and technology . The requirement profile is based on the latest technical and scientific findings. If they cannot yet be realized technically, approval may not be granted; the necessary precaution is therefore not limited by what is currently technically feasible.

In contrast, the recognized rules of technology require compliance with what is generally scientifically recognized and proven in practice.

The state of the art stands in between. It waives the general recognition that has already been achieved, which is required for the recognized rules of technology, and designates an advanced level of development that can be regarded as secured in order to achieve certain practical protective purposes. The state of the art reflects what is technically necessary, suitable, appropriate and avoidable. The state of the art is legally defined in Section 3 (6) of the BImschG .

Even if the state of the art in science and technology is adhered to, a residual risk emanating from the system cannot be ruled out, as this technology clause is based on the theoretical state of knowledge of a science, including disputes, without being able to fall back on reliable practical experience.

The state of the art, on the other hand, accepts a marginal risk . This marginal risk is determined by what is “economically justifiable” because what is practicable is often subject to market economy considerations. In the risk assessment , the technically feasible and the economically justifiable must be weighed against each other. The economically justifiable marginal risk is usually much higher than the technical one.

The state of the art in science and technology serves the best possible protection of fundamental rights , for example against the dangers of nuclear energy . For example, according to Section 7 (2) No. 3 of the Atomic Energy Act , the plant license may only be issued "if [...] the necessary precautions against damage caused by the construction and operation of the plant according to the state of the art in science and technology have been taken".

See also

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Schmidt / Schischkoff: Philosophical dictionary . 18th edition. Pocket edition vol. 13. Alfred Kröner, Stuttgart 1969, p. 98.2 .
  2. ^ Schmidt / Schischkoff: Philosophical dictionary . 18th edition. Pocket edition vol. 13. Alfred Kröner, Stuttgart 1969, p. 278.4 .
  3. ^ Schmidt / Schischkoff: Philosophical dictionary . 18th edition. Pocket edition vol. 13. Alfred Kröner, Stuttgart 1969, p. 163.2 .
  4. ^ Schmidt / Schischkoff: Philosophical dictionary . 18th edition. Pocket edition vol. 13. Alfred Kröner, Stuttgart 1969, p. 339.4 .
  5. ^ A b Herbert Schattke: Interrelationships between law, technology and science - using the example of nuclear law . In: Alexander Roßnagel (Hrsg.): Law and technology in the field of tension of the nuclear energy controversy . 1984, ISBN 978-3-531-11694-5 , doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-322-83941-1 .
  6. a b Michael Mulkay: Consensus in science . In: Information (International Social Science Council) . 17th year, no. 1 , 1978, p. 107-122 .
  7. ^ Stephan Lewandowsky, Gilles E. Gignac and Samuel Vaughan: The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science . In: Nature Climate Change . 2013, doi : 10.1038 / nclimate1720 .
  8. a b c d Laszlo Kosolosky and Jeroen Van Bouwel: Explicating Ways of Consensus-Making in Science and Society: Distinguishing the Academic, the Interface and the Meta-Consensus . In: Carlo Martini and Marcel Boumans (eds.): Experts and Consensus in Social Science (=  Ethical Economy: Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy . Volume 50 ). 2014, ISBN 978-3-319-08550-0 , doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-319-08551-7_4 .
  9. ^ Edward W Maibach and Sander L van der Linden: The importance of assessing and communicating scientific consensus . In: Environmental Research Letters . tape 11 , no. September 9 , 2016, doi : 10.1088 / 1748-9326 / 11/9/091003 .
  10. John Beatty and Alfred Moore: Should We Aim for Consensus? In: Episteme . tape 7 , no. 3 , 2012, doi : 10.3366 / E1742360010000948 .
  11. Anna Leuschner: Is it appropriate to 'target' inappropriate dissent? On the normative consequences of climate skepticism . In: Synthesis . 2016, doi : 10.1007 / s11229-016-1267-x .
  12. Kristen Intemann and Inmaculada de Melo-Martín: Are there limits to scientists' obligations to seek and engage dissenters? In: Synthesis . tape 191 , no. August 12 , 2014, doi : 10.1007 / s11229-014-0414-5 .
  13. Justin B. Biddle and Anna Leuschner: Climate Skepticism and the Manufacture of Doubt: Can Dissent in Science be Epistemically Detrimental? In: European Journal for the Philosophy of Science . tape 5 , no. 3 , October 2015, doi : 10.1007 / s13194-014-0101-x .
  14. ^ Carol Reeves: Scientific Consensus . In: Susanna Hornig Priest (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication . tape 1 . SAGE Publications, 2010, ISBN 978-1-4129-5920-9 .
  15. Boaz Miller: When is consensus knowledge based? Distinguishing shared knowledge from several agreements . In: Synthesis . tape 190 , no. May 7 , 2013, doi : 10.1007 / s11229-012-0225-5 .
  16. BGBl. I p. 717
  17. BVerfG, decision of August 8, 1978 - 2 BvL 8/77 para. 90 ff., 96 ff.
  18. Tomasz Lawicki: What does “state of the art” mean? Figure 1: Three-step theory based on the Kalkar decision, accessed on June 4, 2019
  19. BVerfG, decision of August 8, 1978 - 2 BvL 8/77, no. 98
  20. BVerfG, decision of August 8, 1978 - 2 BvL 8/77, no. 97
  21. Mark Seibel: Differentiation of the "recognized rules of technology" from the "state of the art" ( Memento of November 23, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF) In: NJW 2013, 3000.