philosophy of the humanities: media studies
notes
week 1
lecture (chapters 1-3) -> introduction to philosophy of science
toolbox approach
§ critical reflection on science and scientific research, reflecting on methodology
§ critical science consumers
- critical consumers of media (studies)
- knowledge society, 4th industrial revolution
- e.g., fake news, fake scientific journals, deep fake software, growing concern w.r.t. vaccinations
based on misinformation/ pseudoscience, replication crisis in psychology (and elsewhere), disregard of
mechanistic evidence in evidence based medicine, misinformation in climate change-debate, etc...
à critical thinking in the 21st century
§ "As a university, it will be our role to make sure we provide the knowledge and skills our graduates
need to make a difference in this national and simultaneously international playing field." (Opening speech
by Rector Magnificus Karen Maex on the occasion of the 386th Dies Natalis of the UVA, January 8 2018)
§ “Quite understandably, the education-for-the-future discussion has focused on STEM (science, tech,
engineering, math). [...] the value of these subjects in a tech- driven era is indisputable. [...] Yet
there’s a case to be made that our society’s growing focus on STEM – while both laudable and
necessary – has spawned an either/or mentality that undervalues the very subjects that might help us
become the best stewards of technology. Those subjects include such core humanities as history,
philosophy, literature and the arts.” (Hans Vestberg, CEO Verizon Communications, September 21 2018. World Economic Forum.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/why-we-need-both-science-and-humanities-for- a-fourth-industrial-revolution-education/)
WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE?
general vs specific
§ general philosophy of science vs. philosophy of a specific scientific discipline (e.g. philosophy of
biology, communication and information sciences, economics, history, physics, psychology,
European Studies,...)
§ issues/questions: methodological, epistemological, metaphysical
à general: issues and questions that transcend specific disciplines
e.g., explaining why democratic countries do not engage in warfare against each other
à specific: issues specific to a particular scientific discipline (or particular disciplines)
question specific to social sciences (viz. political sciences)
e.g. ‘democratic peace hypothesis’ by Immanuel Kant
-> Kant believed in the epistemological justification of scientific knowledge (logical
positivism rejects his ideas)
§ among proponents of the democratic peace theory, several factors are held as
motivating peace between democratic states:
§ democratic leaders are forced to accept culpability for war losses to a voting public;
§ publicly accountable states people are inclined to establish diplomatic institutions for
resolving international tensions;
1
, philosophy of the humanities: media studies
notes
§ ‘Democracies are not inclined to view countries with adjacent policy and governing doctrine as
hostile; democracies tend to possess greater public wealth than other states, and therefore
eschew war to preserve infrastructure and resources.’
à ‘why do democratic countries not engage in warfare against each other?’ – resemblance question
answer: ‘democratic peace hypothesis – explanation format: mechanism unification
(common (causal) factors in social mechanisms across democratic countries)
general philosophy of science
§ general question e.g. commonalities and differences in the structure of explanation by
mechanism unification across different disciplines
-> e.g. social mechanisms in social science; socio-technical mechanisms in engineering science;
neurophysiological mechanisms in neuroscience
what kind of philosophical theory of science?
a) a logical theory of science
à the (abstract, logical) structure of scientific theories and the
relationships between theory and evidence
b) methodology of science
à rules or procedures that scientists do or should follow
c) understanding scientific thinking
à scientific reasoning processes
d) understanding scientific change
descriptive and normative philosophies (ch. 1)
§ explication (Carnap)
§ means for:
à descriptive claims about science
- they describe which methods/styles of argument play a role
à normative claims about science
- e.g. formulating norms for scientists on the basis of philosophical explications of scientific
concepts
- e.g. “[T]he norms of [mechanistic] explanation fall out of a commitment by scientists to
describe as accurately and completely as possible the relevant ontic structures in the world”
(Craver 2014, p. 48)
important: descriptive vs normative claims
-> normative vs descriptive all throughout six lectures
-> e.g. Kuhn’s paradigm work very descriptive
‘Explication’ by Rudolf Carnap
§ Carnap: scientists often use explications
§ e.g. replacing the concept fish by scientific concept Piscis.
- ‘fish’: animals that live in water
- ‘piscis’ gives us more knowledge: animals live in water, coldblooded vertebrates, have gills
§ Carnap: philosophers (should) do so as well
à often descriptive and normative philosophy intertwined
-> “Why should we want an account of explanation? Two reasons present themselves. Firstly, we
would like to understand and to evaluate the popular claim that the natural sciences do not merely
pile up unrelated items of knowledge of more or less practical significance, but that they increase our
understanding of the world. A theory of explanation should show us how scientific explanation
advances our understanding....
-> Secondly, an account of explanation ought to enable us to comprehend and to arbitrate disputes in
past and present science. Embryonic theories are often defended by appeal to their explanatory
power. A theory of explanation should enable us to judge the adequacy of the defense.”
2
, philosophy of the humanities: media studies
notes
WHAT IS SCIENCE AND WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF SCIENCE?
à how to distinguish science from other sources of knowledge?
à critical reflection on science and scientific research should be informed by a vision on the goal(s) of science -
what are those goals?
science vs pseudo-science
-> science = an enterprise that builds knowledge in form of testable explanations
-> pseudoscience = a claim which is presented as scientific but lacks valid scientific
validity/methodology + can’t be refuted on basis of observation, e.g. astrology
§ verifiability
-> claim should be testable using sensory experience
§ falsifiability
-> claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible
observation
à how to demarcate science from pseudoscience:
• logical positivism: verifiability
- claim should be testable using sensory experience
• Karl Popper: falsifiability
- claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible
observation
logical positivism
§ verifiability theory of meaning
à knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing how to verify it by means of observation
- verifiability = testability
- strong empiricist principle: experience is the only source of meaning
- scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning
§ most traditional philosophy lacks meaning!
verifiable or not?
§ ‘The soul is immortal’
§ “...reason is substance, as well as infinite power underlying all the natural and
spiritual life; as also the infinite form, that which sets the material in motion.” (Hegel)
-> LP: these statements appear factive and hence verifiable but in fact are not
problems with verifiability
§ the criterion itself is not verifiable...
§ the neutral experience assumption is false -> observation is theory-laden
Karl Popper -> verifiability theory does not work
à his alternative: falsifiability
§ claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible observation
§ argues that all knowledge has preliminary hypothetical character, can at any
moment turn out to be false
§ claim needs to forbid certain states of affairs
§ observation is theory laden – theories as search lights over reality
e.g. ‘tomorrow it will either rain or not’ -> not falsifiable, completely uninformative
‘Trump will start building his wall between the US and Mexico in 2019’
-> argues that all knowledge has preliminary hypothetical character, can at any moment
turn out to be false
-> knowledge is not founded by experience but rather corrected in the light of experience
(observation = theory laden)
-> ground-breaking as it was "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the
history of philosophy" (wikipedia)
3
, philosophy of the humanities: media studies
notes
problems with falsifiability
§ does not square with scientific practice
- scientists don’t abandon their theories after one falsification
§ pseudo-sciences can make falsifiable statements...
§ probabilistic claims
- e.g. spotting a wolf in het Amsterdamse Bos is a low-probability event, but not one that
can be ruled out altogether
Popper’s reproduction requirement
= “Non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science” (1934, The logic of Scientific Discovery)
reproduction and replication
à reproduction: experiment y repeats experiment x; x and y have the same design; and the results
of y confirm x’s results
- counteract fraud and chance results (1/20 norm)
- increase representability
à replication: experiment y repeats experiment x; x and y have a different design; and the results of
y confirm x’s results
- counteract biased results due to measuring instruments used and/or design of the
experiment
“Reproducibility Project: Psychology”
§ problem of non-reproducible results in psychology
§ 2006: 103 out of 144 authors (73%) of an APA journal article did not disclose their data...
§ 2015 (follow up study): 246 out of 394 authors (62%) did not disclose their data
§ 270 researchers cooperated, aiming to reproduce 100 different psychological studies (published in 2008)
§ 97 out of 100 studies claimed significant results
§ 2015: only 35 out of the 97 reproduction studies (36,1%) showed significant results (of which the effect was smaller
than in the original studies
§ lesson: reproduction and replication crucial to scientific practice
goals of science
à realism
“One actual and reasonable aim of science is to give us accurate descriptions (and other
representations) of what reality is like. This project includes giving us accurate representations of
aspects of reality that are unobservable.” (Godfrey-Smith 2003, p. 176)
vs
à constructive empiricism
§ “Science aims to give us theories which are empirically adequate.” (van Fraassen 1980, p. 12)
- accurate descriptions of the observable parts of the world, e.g. math
à (wide) pragmatism
§ “Nobody should be beguiled by the idea that the aim of inquiry is merely to discover truth, for, as
numerous philosophers have recognized, there are vast numbers of true statements it would be
utterly pointless to ascertain. The sciences are surely directed at finding significant truths.” (Kitcher
2001, p. 65)
§ practically significant truths: “applying the knowledge will contribute to human welfare” (p. 138)
§ epistemically significant truths: “certain things which it is good to know for human beings
because it will relieve their curiosity’ (p. 138)
§ “Two enduring human concerns have provided the principal stimulus for man’s scientific efforts.
One of them is of a practical nature. [...] to find reliable ways of foreseeing chances in his
environment and, if possible, controlling them to his advantage. [...] The second [...] is
independent of such practical concerns: it lies in his sheer intellectual curiosity, his deep and
persistent desire to know and to understand himself and his world. (Hempel, 1965, p. 333)
illustration: causality and explanation
§ assessing the truth of causal claims important scientific activity
§ in the service of two central (more specific) aims of science:
4
notes
week 1
lecture (chapters 1-3) -> introduction to philosophy of science
toolbox approach
§ critical reflection on science and scientific research, reflecting on methodology
§ critical science consumers
- critical consumers of media (studies)
- knowledge society, 4th industrial revolution
- e.g., fake news, fake scientific journals, deep fake software, growing concern w.r.t. vaccinations
based on misinformation/ pseudoscience, replication crisis in psychology (and elsewhere), disregard of
mechanistic evidence in evidence based medicine, misinformation in climate change-debate, etc...
à critical thinking in the 21st century
§ "As a university, it will be our role to make sure we provide the knowledge and skills our graduates
need to make a difference in this national and simultaneously international playing field." (Opening speech
by Rector Magnificus Karen Maex on the occasion of the 386th Dies Natalis of the UVA, January 8 2018)
§ “Quite understandably, the education-for-the-future discussion has focused on STEM (science, tech,
engineering, math). [...] the value of these subjects in a tech- driven era is indisputable. [...] Yet
there’s a case to be made that our society’s growing focus on STEM – while both laudable and
necessary – has spawned an either/or mentality that undervalues the very subjects that might help us
become the best stewards of technology. Those subjects include such core humanities as history,
philosophy, literature and the arts.” (Hans Vestberg, CEO Verizon Communications, September 21 2018. World Economic Forum.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/why-we-need-both-science-and-humanities-for- a-fourth-industrial-revolution-education/)
WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE?
general vs specific
§ general philosophy of science vs. philosophy of a specific scientific discipline (e.g. philosophy of
biology, communication and information sciences, economics, history, physics, psychology,
European Studies,...)
§ issues/questions: methodological, epistemological, metaphysical
à general: issues and questions that transcend specific disciplines
e.g., explaining why democratic countries do not engage in warfare against each other
à specific: issues specific to a particular scientific discipline (or particular disciplines)
question specific to social sciences (viz. political sciences)
e.g. ‘democratic peace hypothesis’ by Immanuel Kant
-> Kant believed in the epistemological justification of scientific knowledge (logical
positivism rejects his ideas)
§ among proponents of the democratic peace theory, several factors are held as
motivating peace between democratic states:
§ democratic leaders are forced to accept culpability for war losses to a voting public;
§ publicly accountable states people are inclined to establish diplomatic institutions for
resolving international tensions;
1
, philosophy of the humanities: media studies
notes
§ ‘Democracies are not inclined to view countries with adjacent policy and governing doctrine as
hostile; democracies tend to possess greater public wealth than other states, and therefore
eschew war to preserve infrastructure and resources.’
à ‘why do democratic countries not engage in warfare against each other?’ – resemblance question
answer: ‘democratic peace hypothesis – explanation format: mechanism unification
(common (causal) factors in social mechanisms across democratic countries)
general philosophy of science
§ general question e.g. commonalities and differences in the structure of explanation by
mechanism unification across different disciplines
-> e.g. social mechanisms in social science; socio-technical mechanisms in engineering science;
neurophysiological mechanisms in neuroscience
what kind of philosophical theory of science?
a) a logical theory of science
à the (abstract, logical) structure of scientific theories and the
relationships between theory and evidence
b) methodology of science
à rules or procedures that scientists do or should follow
c) understanding scientific thinking
à scientific reasoning processes
d) understanding scientific change
descriptive and normative philosophies (ch. 1)
§ explication (Carnap)
§ means for:
à descriptive claims about science
- they describe which methods/styles of argument play a role
à normative claims about science
- e.g. formulating norms for scientists on the basis of philosophical explications of scientific
concepts
- e.g. “[T]he norms of [mechanistic] explanation fall out of a commitment by scientists to
describe as accurately and completely as possible the relevant ontic structures in the world”
(Craver 2014, p. 48)
important: descriptive vs normative claims
-> normative vs descriptive all throughout six lectures
-> e.g. Kuhn’s paradigm work very descriptive
‘Explication’ by Rudolf Carnap
§ Carnap: scientists often use explications
§ e.g. replacing the concept fish by scientific concept Piscis.
- ‘fish’: animals that live in water
- ‘piscis’ gives us more knowledge: animals live in water, coldblooded vertebrates, have gills
§ Carnap: philosophers (should) do so as well
à often descriptive and normative philosophy intertwined
-> “Why should we want an account of explanation? Two reasons present themselves. Firstly, we
would like to understand and to evaluate the popular claim that the natural sciences do not merely
pile up unrelated items of knowledge of more or less practical significance, but that they increase our
understanding of the world. A theory of explanation should show us how scientific explanation
advances our understanding....
-> Secondly, an account of explanation ought to enable us to comprehend and to arbitrate disputes in
past and present science. Embryonic theories are often defended by appeal to their explanatory
power. A theory of explanation should enable us to judge the adequacy of the defense.”
2
, philosophy of the humanities: media studies
notes
WHAT IS SCIENCE AND WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF SCIENCE?
à how to distinguish science from other sources of knowledge?
à critical reflection on science and scientific research should be informed by a vision on the goal(s) of science -
what are those goals?
science vs pseudo-science
-> science = an enterprise that builds knowledge in form of testable explanations
-> pseudoscience = a claim which is presented as scientific but lacks valid scientific
validity/methodology + can’t be refuted on basis of observation, e.g. astrology
§ verifiability
-> claim should be testable using sensory experience
§ falsifiability
-> claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible
observation
à how to demarcate science from pseudoscience:
• logical positivism: verifiability
- claim should be testable using sensory experience
• Karl Popper: falsifiability
- claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible
observation
logical positivism
§ verifiability theory of meaning
à knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing how to verify it by means of observation
- verifiability = testability
- strong empiricist principle: experience is the only source of meaning
- scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning
§ most traditional philosophy lacks meaning!
verifiable or not?
§ ‘The soul is immortal’
§ “...reason is substance, as well as infinite power underlying all the natural and
spiritual life; as also the infinite form, that which sets the material in motion.” (Hegel)
-> LP: these statements appear factive and hence verifiable but in fact are not
problems with verifiability
§ the criterion itself is not verifiable...
§ the neutral experience assumption is false -> observation is theory-laden
Karl Popper -> verifiability theory does not work
à his alternative: falsifiability
§ claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible observation
§ argues that all knowledge has preliminary hypothetical character, can at any
moment turn out to be false
§ claim needs to forbid certain states of affairs
§ observation is theory laden – theories as search lights over reality
e.g. ‘tomorrow it will either rain or not’ -> not falsifiable, completely uninformative
‘Trump will start building his wall between the US and Mexico in 2019’
-> argues that all knowledge has preliminary hypothetical character, can at any moment
turn out to be false
-> knowledge is not founded by experience but rather corrected in the light of experience
(observation = theory laden)
-> ground-breaking as it was "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the
history of philosophy" (wikipedia)
3
, philosophy of the humanities: media studies
notes
problems with falsifiability
§ does not square with scientific practice
- scientists don’t abandon their theories after one falsification
§ pseudo-sciences can make falsifiable statements...
§ probabilistic claims
- e.g. spotting a wolf in het Amsterdamse Bos is a low-probability event, but not one that
can be ruled out altogether
Popper’s reproduction requirement
= “Non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science” (1934, The logic of Scientific Discovery)
reproduction and replication
à reproduction: experiment y repeats experiment x; x and y have the same design; and the results
of y confirm x’s results
- counteract fraud and chance results (1/20 norm)
- increase representability
à replication: experiment y repeats experiment x; x and y have a different design; and the results of
y confirm x’s results
- counteract biased results due to measuring instruments used and/or design of the
experiment
“Reproducibility Project: Psychology”
§ problem of non-reproducible results in psychology
§ 2006: 103 out of 144 authors (73%) of an APA journal article did not disclose their data...
§ 2015 (follow up study): 246 out of 394 authors (62%) did not disclose their data
§ 270 researchers cooperated, aiming to reproduce 100 different psychological studies (published in 2008)
§ 97 out of 100 studies claimed significant results
§ 2015: only 35 out of the 97 reproduction studies (36,1%) showed significant results (of which the effect was smaller
than in the original studies
§ lesson: reproduction and replication crucial to scientific practice
goals of science
à realism
“One actual and reasonable aim of science is to give us accurate descriptions (and other
representations) of what reality is like. This project includes giving us accurate representations of
aspects of reality that are unobservable.” (Godfrey-Smith 2003, p. 176)
vs
à constructive empiricism
§ “Science aims to give us theories which are empirically adequate.” (van Fraassen 1980, p. 12)
- accurate descriptions of the observable parts of the world, e.g. math
à (wide) pragmatism
§ “Nobody should be beguiled by the idea that the aim of inquiry is merely to discover truth, for, as
numerous philosophers have recognized, there are vast numbers of true statements it would be
utterly pointless to ascertain. The sciences are surely directed at finding significant truths.” (Kitcher
2001, p. 65)
§ practically significant truths: “applying the knowledge will contribute to human welfare” (p. 138)
§ epistemically significant truths: “certain things which it is good to know for human beings
because it will relieve their curiosity’ (p. 138)
§ “Two enduring human concerns have provided the principal stimulus for man’s scientific efforts.
One of them is of a practical nature. [...] to find reliable ways of foreseeing chances in his
environment and, if possible, controlling them to his advantage. [...] The second [...] is
independent of such practical concerns: it lies in his sheer intellectual curiosity, his deep and
persistent desire to know and to understand himself and his world. (Hempel, 1965, p. 333)
illustration: causality and explanation
§ assessing the truth of causal claims important scientific activity
§ in the service of two central (more specific) aims of science:
4
