Explain how the principles of science relate to Cybersecurity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Scientific principles are principles such as Relativity, Objectivity, Parsimony, Ethical Neutrality, Empiricism, and Determinism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To facilitate a better understanding of these principles before relating them to cybersecurity, I will first provide a brief description of each principle.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Relativism – Everything is interconnected and constantly changing, requiring us to adapt our understanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Objectivity – We strive to analyze information and situations neutrally, without bias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Parsimony – We favor the simplest explanation that aligns with the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Empiricism -Knowledge comes from observation and data, not just assumptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethical Neutrality -Scientific findings themselves are neutral; it’s their application that raises ethical considerations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Determinism – Events have identifiable causes that can be studied and understood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Personally I do not think Empiricism is a solid philosophical stance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When you try to understand the epistemology, empiricism is a weak position. Ask how do we know what we know? If you say I saw it or observed it, how do you have the knowledge to verify your senses?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moving on…<\/p>\n\n\n\n How do these principles intersect with Cybersecurity?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Relativism<\/strong> states that things are interconnected and affect one another as they change. We can see in cybersecurity how changes in International Relations, and technology in general change cybersecurity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n EXAMPLE: Russia\/Ukraine conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the Russian\/Ukraine war has started there has been an increase in phishing emails targeting Ukrainian organizations. A piece of malware known as \u201cWhisperGate\u201d was deployed against Ukrainian government and financial institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These we can say are obvious, cyber is a piece of warfare today and since there is a war going on, cyber-attacks can be expected. What are some less obvious connections we can make?<\/p>\n\n\n\n One aspect that may be less widely understood is that the Russia-Ukraine conflict presents an opportunity for the United States to evaluate new defense technologies and strategies in a real-world scenario. The conflict serves as a testing ground for innovative applications and hardware against a capable adversary. As offensive tactics evolve and become more sophisticated, this will necessitate the development of stronger and more adaptable defensive capabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also the war has had an impact on the global supply chain. Russian actors have been targeting the supply chains used in Europe and Ukraine that provide support to Ukrainians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Infantry wins battles, logistics wins wars” – General John J. Pershing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The principle of relativism, emphasizing interconnectedness and constant change, In the game of chess we see this concept more clearly. Every move on the board alters the entire landscape, impacting the safety and potential of each piece. This creates a dynamic and interconnected system where the relative value of pieces and the validity of strategies constantly shift.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Objectivity<\/strong> as it relates to Cybersecurity. Objective as it is defined in this course is a \u201cvalue-free\u201d approach. The slide that explains this states Science exists to objectively advance knowledge. I think we first need to ask what knowledge can be gained from science? Science is the process of using our observation to understand the principles that define our reality\/universe\/environment and help us navigate them. For instance, in the early 1900\u2019s inventors and scientists began to understand combustion and it led to the invention of the Internal Combustion Engine. Science, as demonstrated by the history of vehicle development, helped us harness natural phenomena and create technologies that revolutionize our lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sticking to the data is difficult. Being completely void of personal opinion or are individually held morality and not inserting that into the data may be difficult but that is what is required to be \u201cobjective\u201d. The next scientific principle we will cover is empiricism. The slide in Module 2 states<\/p>\n\n\n\n ” Empiricism means that social scientists can only study behavior which is real to the senses (e.g., we can touch, see, taste, hear, or smell it). Scientific knowledge, then, comes from that which we experience.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n I agree that the scientific method relies on observations and experiences detectable by our senses. Alot of people seem to think that this gives science a special power that makes it infallible and void of any interference with personal opinions. However, Science is not a suitable pursuit when it comes to explaining phenomena that lie outside the scope of our direct sensory perception. I see it more as a limitation. If my senses are the source for all truth and knowledge, how do I validate that? How do I know my senses are correct or not? Do the senses validate the senses?<\/p>\n\n\n\n AKA, how do you know that you saw that? because you saw it? Did you see yourself see it? How do you know? How can observable phenomenon account for things that are intangible, such as ethics, morals, logic, truth, justice, values? <\/p>\n\n\n\n When working in cybersecurity or any field we need not limit ourselves to the knowledge gained by the senses (empiric evidence). We should be encouraged to draw upon other frameworks and not feel compelled to abandon everything else except “science”. As if that is possible. It is impossible to separate our philosophical judgment from what we do or what we expect from others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Let’s engage in a hypothetical scenario, one where there are 2 individuals. Adam and Brian. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Brian is being told by Adam throughout his tenure at his company “Our job is to be objective and value-free. We deal in facts, not feelings.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n “Ethical and moral frameworks belong in philosophical discussions, not cybersecurity analysis. We need hard data to make sound decisions, not speculation about intent or motivation.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n “Focusing on personal opinions and emotions will cloud our judgment. We need to maintain a clear and unemotional approach to analyze the situation effectively.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n “I understand your concerns, but I can assure you my approach is purely objective. My personal beliefs have no bearing on my professional conduct.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those who are telling this to Brian or who agree likely view this stance as scientifically rigorous and thus superior. These comments align with how objectivity is often portrayed in the scientific world \u2013 as rational and unbiased. <\/p>\n\n\n\n HOWEVER, the demand to abandon all framework outside of science is itself a value statement. It favors a specific and particular approach to knowledge and analysis yet fails to acknowledge this as its own biased view rather than an indisputable truth.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Brians perspective is that scientific methods, while crucial, cannot exist in a vacuum. The argument claiming objectivity must mean valuing science alone is self-defeating. Any stance that insists a specific approach is “good” or “correct” inherently relies on moral judgments about what those terms mean. This undermines the initial premise of “pure objectivity.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n For some, science (or a particular interpretation of it) becomes the unquestioned authority. They elevate the scientific method as the only valid way of knowing, dismissing other perspectives as inherently flawed or subjective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Take these 2 competing perspectives in the context of “Cyber Operations”. If we are to be value free and rely on empiric evidence only, then outside having an awareness of the attacks and defenses, why should we do anything about it? What justification is there to stop it vs letting it happen? <\/p>\n\n\n\n I cannot think of a scientific explanation for why we should stop other people from doing whatever they want. What scientific justification is there to fight China or Russia? Why is one side better than the other? What reason is there to do anything? What makes cybercriminals wrong, or what gives us the imperative to punish or stop “wrongdoing”? What scientific empirical evidence is there for right and wrong? <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Explain how the principles of science relate to Cybersecurity. Scientific principles are principles such as Relativity, Objectivity, Parsimony, Ethical Neutrality, Empiricism, and Determinism. To facilitate a better understanding of these principles before relating them to cybersecurity, I will first provide a brief description of each principle. Relativism – Everything is interconnected and constantly changing, requiring us… read more »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26723,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","wds_primary_category":0},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wilburn-eportfolio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wilburn-eportfolio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wilburn-eportfolio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wilburn-eportfolio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26723"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wilburn-eportfolio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=218"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wilburn-eportfolio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":234,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wilburn-eportfolio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218\/revisions\/234"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wilburn-eportfolio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wilburn-eportfolio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wilburn-eportfolio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
In cybersecurity, objectivity can be used when looking at the facts of incidents. Not grasping for reasons why we should attribute the attack to this group or that group. Also, hearing out what our analysts have to say regardless of their experience. A new person can be correct the same as a more experienced one. We shouldn\u2019t automatically write off the input of analysts due to their experience levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n