Have you ever wondered why doctoral degrees in chemistry, biology, physics, psychology, and mathematics are PhDs? It's a degree as a doctor in philosophy. What the core ideas underlying scientific pursuit are philosophical in nature. Many research methods courses cover this only in cursory detail, not here. Let's dig into it. To begin to observe and explain phenomena requires a set of beliefs about how knowledge and reason apply to this problem. These are the assumptions of science. Every scientific discipline has them. We often take these for granted. During the normal course of normal science, Thomas Kon developed a theory of scientific paradigms around this idea of normal science and its tendency toward a set of assumptions taken for granted and not actively challenged. Notice that biology research papers do not begin by explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection. Doing so would be redundant, and biologists have largely agreed on that theory as well, validated and worthy of accepting as a core assumption underlying the field.
Physics papers do something quite similar. Introduction sections aren't littered with explanations about the standard model of particle physics. Chemistry papers aren't repeatedly explaining atomic theory. Psychology papers don't repeatedly explain that brains are the source of motivation and behavior at any given time point. Our scientific pursuits are built on a set of assumptions. We don't actively challenge those assumptions. We don't feel that we need to, but wait, I thought scientists were supposed to be critical of everything after all. Didn't pop or say that If we are uncritical, we shall always find what we want. The core of the issue is about what we take for granted. Taking for granted certain methods and theories allows us to advance the science. Kon wasn't being critical when he argued that normal science is built on a set of assumptions. He thought this was necessary for any advancement to occur.
He argued that we take for granted our paradigms. Kun define paradigms as the universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners. If we were excessively critical about our paradigms, we could never make any advancement. Every paper would still be debating and analyzing the structure of a cell. Adam. The core nature of any individual theory or the basic philosophy of science itself, we would never advance. Accepting certain assumptions allows us to be critical of the more nuanced issues which flow from that set of assumptions. If we accept that the theory of evolution by natural selection is accurate, we can debate precisely what types of fossils we should expect to see in which regions of the world, at what time in history. If we accept the theory of tectonic plates, we can debate with what frequency we should expect to see earthquakes in which regions and what their intensity may be. If we accept that brains are the source of human motivation, we can debate the relative impact of the insular cortex versus the amygdala. In recognition, memory assumptions are great. They let us pull ourselves out of the muck and get on with new discoveries. We have cell phones, spaceships, neurosurgery, working, artificial limbs, cochlear implants, computer chips, and the internet. Because we keep assuming things, assumptions are also terrible. We engage in confirmation bias and have pet theories because we make inaccurate assumptions. I've come to view science as a community-wide fight over what to assume. If you can convince enough scientists to assume something, it will be embedded into the fabric of that field's paradigm until challenged by another. Plucky. Interlocutor. But in order to convince any scientist of anything, you have to begin your argument with a fundamental understanding of the existing paradigm. This shouldn't sound like an all ideas are equal argument. It should sound like a challenge. Basic ideas in the language and logic of those who hold them argument. The introduction section of nearly every scientific paper sets out to tell us what the field already believes. This is intentional. The point is to try to ensure that we're clear about specifically which assumptions were accepting and which were challenging.