Reflection: Your Epistemological Habits

Prompts to consider

• Popper says a belief is scientific only if you can specify what would make you give it up. Pick three beliefs you hold with high confidence, one about the physical world, one about people, one about yourself. For each: what observation or evidence would falsify it? If you can't answer, are you disturbed by that? Should you be?
• Kuhn describes scientists in normal science tolerating anomalies and protecting their core assumptions, and shows this is often rational. Think of a belief system you operate in (professional, political, religious, personal) where you do the same thing. What is your '==hard core==', the commitments you protect even when evidence is awkward? What is your '==protective belt==', the auxiliary hypotheses you adjust? Is this rational or dogmatic?
• Feyerabend argues that science's cultural authority is partly a power phenomenon, not purely an epistemic one. Do you find this plausible, dangerous, liberating, or some combination? What is the practical difference between saying 'science has better methods' and saying 'science has more cultural authority'? And does the distinction matter for how you engage with scientific consensus on contested questions?