What are Scientists' Views on Epistemological Anarchism?

The working scientists I know of who have time to consider such ideas generally sigh and shake their heads, returning to their research. There are a handful of scientists I've met who don't react this way—instead, they laugh and continue their work.

This idea, like other similar ideas, is a philosophical view, not a scientific one. It's not even a particularly novel or interesting philosophical view. The Greek philosopher Pyrrho rode this particular train to the last station, asserting that under any circumstances, we could not empirically know anything, up to and including our own existence.

An Interesting Yet Skeptical View

While it's an interesting idea in a sort of bohemian college setting, where students might sit in an armchair, get a drink, and ponder "And the answer is that science is neither perfect nor complete," the reality is more pragmatic. In the pursuit of understanding the empirical world, examining the empirical evidence has succeeded best out of all the approaches that have been tried.

The Heart of the Scientific Method

At its core, the scientific method is about looking at the world with a minimum of self-delusion and confirmation bias. All the other rules—such as replicability, data analysis, and double-blind trials—are not arbitrary rules that a bunch of people came up with because they like rules. These ideas exist because human beings are exceptionally good at believing what they want to believe and ignoring what they don't want to believe. The scientific method includes these rules as a way to counteract those biases:

"Science is not a collection of facts. General relativity is not science. Newton's laws are not science. Those things are the products of science. Science is a way to look at the world with a minimum of self-delusion and confirmation bias."

Philosophical vs. Practical Approaches

Philosophers can definitely indulge in discussions about how we know the world is real. That's cool. If that's how they want to spend their days, I have no problem with that. However, when it comes to figuring out how the physical universe around us actually works, well... I've seen scientists land a probe on the surface of a comet 300 million miles away after traveling for ten years. It takes a pretty good grasp of how the universe works to make that happen. To date, I am unaware of any group of philosophers who have demonstrated anywhere near that level of understanding of the processes of the physical world.

Conclusion

While epistemological anarchism may be an intriguing philosophical perspective, the scientific method remains the most reliable and successful approach to understanding the empirical world. Scientists, with their detailed, evidence-driven work, represent a practical application of a method that seeks to minimize personal biases and achieve the most accurate understanding possible.

The scientific method, while not a perfect system, is a powerful tool that has led to groundbreaking discoveries and innovations. It is precisely the combination of rigorous experimentation, clear documentation, and peer review that has enabled us to explore the vast universe around us. Philosophers can continue to explore the deeper philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge and the world, but when it comes to concrete applications of that knowledge, scientists are the ones who bring it to life.

So, while epistemological anarchism may provide a philosophical platform for discussion, the practical and empirical success of science speaks for itself. In the end, it is the scientific method that allows us to push the boundaries of what we know and understand about the natural world.