College notities
College 1:
Philosophy of social science
What distinguishes science from non science?
How does one get from observations to theories, models, explanations?
What is a (good) scientific theory, explanation, model?
Is scientific knowledge objectivr? What is objectivity?
What role is there for values in science, if any?
Are there ethical or other limits to science?
What goals should science serve?
Philosophy is about reflecting on social science itself, in order to understand it
better
The demarcation problem
How to draw the line between science and non sciene?
College notities 1
, Why does it matter?
We think that science matters, ex: politicians base their statements on science.
Also, science is funded by public money, so where does it go?
Logical positivism
Movement in science that rose in the early 20th century. It was a group of
people who came together to think about questions in science. They worried
about the fact that they saw many theories in science that were way to
speculative. They were not based on proper scientific research
Vienna cricle: group of scientists reflecting on philisophical questions
about science
Aim: Development of a strictly scientific worldview
Against speculative philosophy, religious ideas, traditional worldvies
Side note: Why “positivism”
From positive in the sense of what is posited, what is given, what is laid down
Not in the sense of happy, in a good mood, constructive
Ideals
Strict empiricism: only empirical observation can give us knowledge: No
place for speculative and theoretical claims that are not based on
obesrvation
Use of formal logic and mathematics to create an ideal and precise
language for science: to guard againstunwarranted terminology and against
leaps to conclusions and unsupported theories
Core ideas: verifiability
An ideal and precise language of science
Gate-keeping: only statements that are firmly based on empirical
observation belong in the language of science
The verifiability criterion of meaning:
College notities 2
, Core ideas: Demarcation
Verifiablity as femarcation criterion
Only statments that satisfy the verifiability criterion are scientific, other
statements are non-scientific
(logic, mathematics, and statistics are not verifiable, but they are merely
linguistic conventions to help formulate scientific statements in a precise
manner
Core ideas: induction
Inductive method: from observations to general theories and empiricl
regularities / laws
Observations give rise to hypotheses and theories
And they serve to support / confirm them
Let the data speak form themsleves
Karl popper’s core ides
Fallibility and tentativeness of human knowledge
Dogmatic vs critical thinking
Dogmatic thinking = believing that you are right = an unscientific attitude, you
should always be open to criticism
→ The fact that we are human beings that are fallliable was crucial for him:
What they think they know can always be wrong. It is possible for people to
make mistakes.
Problem of induction
Reasoning from individual observations to general conclusions is logically
invalid
So induction can never completely support general scientific laws and
theories
Popper: no use for induction in science
College notities 3
, —> You can only observe so many swans
Falsifiablility as demarcation criterion
Scientific knowledge is falsifiable knowledge.
Scientific statements ought to ‘clash’ with the world
It must be possible to prove them false through experiments and
observation
Example:
1. Unicorns exist and don’t exist = Already false so not falsifiable
2. Unicorns either exist or they don’t = Already false so not falsifiable
3. Unicorns exist = Falsifiable
4. Unicorns don’t exist = Falsifiable
Example of unfalsifiable theories
Freud: Every little boy has an Oedipus complex or is in denial of it
Marx: Changes in the means of production lead to changes in labor conditions,
which lead to changes in political power, which in turn lead to changes in
ideology
example of a falsified theory
Secularization thesis: through enlightenment modernization, rationalization,
combined with the ascent of science and technology, religious authority
diminishes in all aspects of social life and governance
Scientific method for Popper
Science is about formulating theories (conjectures) in such a way that they
can be falsified by empirical observations
Theories must then be tested as rigorously as possible (attempted
refutations)
We accept those theories that have survived testing
Comparison, popper vs logical positivism
Popper:
College notities 4
College 1:
Philosophy of social science
What distinguishes science from non science?
How does one get from observations to theories, models, explanations?
What is a (good) scientific theory, explanation, model?
Is scientific knowledge objectivr? What is objectivity?
What role is there for values in science, if any?
Are there ethical or other limits to science?
What goals should science serve?
Philosophy is about reflecting on social science itself, in order to understand it
better
The demarcation problem
How to draw the line between science and non sciene?
College notities 1
, Why does it matter?
We think that science matters, ex: politicians base their statements on science.
Also, science is funded by public money, so where does it go?
Logical positivism
Movement in science that rose in the early 20th century. It was a group of
people who came together to think about questions in science. They worried
about the fact that they saw many theories in science that were way to
speculative. They were not based on proper scientific research
Vienna cricle: group of scientists reflecting on philisophical questions
about science
Aim: Development of a strictly scientific worldview
Against speculative philosophy, religious ideas, traditional worldvies
Side note: Why “positivism”
From positive in the sense of what is posited, what is given, what is laid down
Not in the sense of happy, in a good mood, constructive
Ideals
Strict empiricism: only empirical observation can give us knowledge: No
place for speculative and theoretical claims that are not based on
obesrvation
Use of formal logic and mathematics to create an ideal and precise
language for science: to guard againstunwarranted terminology and against
leaps to conclusions and unsupported theories
Core ideas: verifiability
An ideal and precise language of science
Gate-keeping: only statements that are firmly based on empirical
observation belong in the language of science
The verifiability criterion of meaning:
College notities 2
, Core ideas: Demarcation
Verifiablity as femarcation criterion
Only statments that satisfy the verifiability criterion are scientific, other
statements are non-scientific
(logic, mathematics, and statistics are not verifiable, but they are merely
linguistic conventions to help formulate scientific statements in a precise
manner
Core ideas: induction
Inductive method: from observations to general theories and empiricl
regularities / laws
Observations give rise to hypotheses and theories
And they serve to support / confirm them
Let the data speak form themsleves
Karl popper’s core ides
Fallibility and tentativeness of human knowledge
Dogmatic vs critical thinking
Dogmatic thinking = believing that you are right = an unscientific attitude, you
should always be open to criticism
→ The fact that we are human beings that are fallliable was crucial for him:
What they think they know can always be wrong. It is possible for people to
make mistakes.
Problem of induction
Reasoning from individual observations to general conclusions is logically
invalid
So induction can never completely support general scientific laws and
theories
Popper: no use for induction in science
College notities 3
, —> You can only observe so many swans
Falsifiablility as demarcation criterion
Scientific knowledge is falsifiable knowledge.
Scientific statements ought to ‘clash’ with the world
It must be possible to prove them false through experiments and
observation
Example:
1. Unicorns exist and don’t exist = Already false so not falsifiable
2. Unicorns either exist or they don’t = Already false so not falsifiable
3. Unicorns exist = Falsifiable
4. Unicorns don’t exist = Falsifiable
Example of unfalsifiable theories
Freud: Every little boy has an Oedipus complex or is in denial of it
Marx: Changes in the means of production lead to changes in labor conditions,
which lead to changes in political power, which in turn lead to changes in
ideology
example of a falsified theory
Secularization thesis: through enlightenment modernization, rationalization,
combined with the ascent of science and technology, religious authority
diminishes in all aspects of social life and governance
Scientific method for Popper
Science is about formulating theories (conjectures) in such a way that they
can be falsified by empirical observations
Theories must then be tested as rigorously as possible (attempted
refutations)
We accept those theories that have survived testing
Comparison, popper vs logical positivism
Popper:
College notities 4
