This is an excerpt from philosopher Ian Hacking’s book “The Social Construction of What?” (1999). The author argues that all scientific frameworks are interest-dependent, meaning they are shaped by the values, beliefs, and goals of the researchers who create them. He uses the example of astronomical nomenclature to illustrate this point.
Hacking is not saying that objectivity has no place in science or inquiry. Rather, he believes that objectivity is achieved through a constant iterative adjustment between frameworks and facts. This means that our understanding of the world is shaped by both our theoretical frameworks and the data we collect.
The author also rejects the idea that conceptual frameworks determine the space of possible answers, which would allow us to create our own truth or change the facts themselves. Instead, he argues that different frameworks can accommodate the same facts, and that we should engage in legitimate debates about which framework is more useful for making decisions.
Finally, Hacking emphasizes the importance of recognizing when we are engaged in a framed or framing enquiry. He notes that this distinction is often blurry, and that many enquiries involve both framed and framing moments. Ultimately, he encourages us to be aware of our frameworks and to never take them for granted, as they can always be adjusted in light of new discoveries and changing circumstances.
Some key points from the excerpt:
1. All scientific frameworks are interest-dependent.
2. Objectivity is achieved through a constant iterative adjustment between frameworks and facts.
3. Different frameworks can accommodate the same facts, and we should engage in legitimate debates about which framework is more useful.
4. The distinction between framed and framing enquiries is often blurry, and many enquiries involve both.
5. We should always be aware of our frameworks and never take them for granted.
Source: https://aeon.co/essays/the-realist-vs-the-pragmatist-view-of-epistemology