Philosophy of Science
Lecture 1: 1 Feb. 21
Thinking about science
-> Sloppy science and the case of Diederik Stapel
-> Prominent social psychologist from Tilburg
-> Removed from academia: fraud in 55 papers, including 10 PhD dissertations
Exhibits fraud in four ways
-> Publication bias (failed experiments not published)
-> Lack of replication/reproduction of results
-> Statistical incompetence
-> Lack of research ethics
Why is fraud interesting?
-> Sloppy science challenges the “common-sense” view of science:
-> Scientists look for truth, which means scientific knowledge is objective; external influences should
play no role, science is all about (empirical) evidence
Objectivity presupposes a distinction between objective and subjective points of view
-> Claim: scientific knowledge is objective
-> Prerequisite: clear construction of concepts -> absence of vagueness and ambiguity -> ideal:
establishes clarity/avoids equivocality
To be objective, you need a perspective from either all perspectives or no perspective
Concepts need to be precise, specified, measurable and free from personal bias
-> Ideal: personal convictions and values play no role
The case of phrenology
-> Study of the mind through trying to measure the skull, because it was assumed that with the
weight of the skull, we could say something about the brain
-> Proposed a modular view of the mind/brain
-> Perpetuated myths about: racial and gender differences, intelligence and learning, criminal
tendencies, psychiatric disordered, etc
What can we conclude from sloppy science?
-> Reasons to look critically at scientific research
-> First thought: eliminate sloppy science, enforce ideals of objective science
Geurts text: “is what we do pointless?”
-> Identifying “causes” and “laws” in psychology and neuroscience isn’t always feasible
-> Objectivity can still be problematic even if science isn’t sloppy
,Philosophy of Science
From natural science to social science
-> Since 16th/17th century: successful natural sciences (Galileo/Newton)
-> Since the 19th century: society has become the object of research: how to study the society?
-> Is society characterized by causal relations, explanations and theories?
-> Is society reducible to the individuals that live in it?
-> Are “subjects” (researchers) standing apart from the “objects of research”?
Insider perspective: we can’t understand a group unless we’re a part of that group
Opposition: you become biased, “apologetic” descripitons
Outsider perspective: preserve objectivity, be an outsider
Opposition: too much emphasis on explanation, false reduction of insider perspective
Solution: stranger perspective
-> Supposed to bring together the both
Review:
-> Sloppy science is a threat to the common-sense ideal of science
-> Sloppy science shows: reflecting on science is necessary
Central themes of PSS (philosophy of social science):
-> Naturalism: the problem of understanding and explanation in social sciences (can we use the
concept “causality” in society?)
-> Reductionism: the problem of the relation between holism and individualism
-> Normativity: the function of norms, values and rules in the social sciences
,Philosophy of Science
Analyzing the four quadrants:
Systems:
Practices:
Agents:
Actors:
Schurz’s perspective of the stranger: the bridge between the quadrants
, Philosophy of Science
Lecture 2: 3 Feb. 21
3 main themes again: naturalism, reductivism, normativity
The empirical-analytical method
Method of basic inductive inference vs. method of hypothetical-deductive inference
Basic principles of EA method:
-> Free of value
-> Third-person objective
-> Focused on objective knowledge
-> Use of statistical analysis
-> This is the common-sense view of science
Logical positivism (logical empiricism)
Vienna Circle and Logical Positivism, aka:
-> Wiener Kreis (Carnap, Neurath, Schlick)
-> Logical empiricism (Nagel, Hempel, Ayer)
Motivation of LP: the empirical sciences must replace theological and metaphysical world views, i.e.
“the unreasonable powers of church and political ideologies”
Motivating question: what’s the relationship between researcher and object of research?
Other important features (assumptions) of LP’s conception of science
-> Related to Schutz’s outsider perspective
Classical rationality: arguments are only valid if they result from logical reasoning or empirical proof
Criterion of meaning: statements have meaning or no meaning; meaningful statements are:
analytical statements (like: all triangles are 180 degrees,
general truths that cannot change) or synthetic
statements that can be verified
According to positivists: All other statements have no
meaning
Verification and confirmation: ------------->
Lecture 1: 1 Feb. 21
Thinking about science
-> Sloppy science and the case of Diederik Stapel
-> Prominent social psychologist from Tilburg
-> Removed from academia: fraud in 55 papers, including 10 PhD dissertations
Exhibits fraud in four ways
-> Publication bias (failed experiments not published)
-> Lack of replication/reproduction of results
-> Statistical incompetence
-> Lack of research ethics
Why is fraud interesting?
-> Sloppy science challenges the “common-sense” view of science:
-> Scientists look for truth, which means scientific knowledge is objective; external influences should
play no role, science is all about (empirical) evidence
Objectivity presupposes a distinction between objective and subjective points of view
-> Claim: scientific knowledge is objective
-> Prerequisite: clear construction of concepts -> absence of vagueness and ambiguity -> ideal:
establishes clarity/avoids equivocality
To be objective, you need a perspective from either all perspectives or no perspective
Concepts need to be precise, specified, measurable and free from personal bias
-> Ideal: personal convictions and values play no role
The case of phrenology
-> Study of the mind through trying to measure the skull, because it was assumed that with the
weight of the skull, we could say something about the brain
-> Proposed a modular view of the mind/brain
-> Perpetuated myths about: racial and gender differences, intelligence and learning, criminal
tendencies, psychiatric disordered, etc
What can we conclude from sloppy science?
-> Reasons to look critically at scientific research
-> First thought: eliminate sloppy science, enforce ideals of objective science
Geurts text: “is what we do pointless?”
-> Identifying “causes” and “laws” in psychology and neuroscience isn’t always feasible
-> Objectivity can still be problematic even if science isn’t sloppy
,Philosophy of Science
From natural science to social science
-> Since 16th/17th century: successful natural sciences (Galileo/Newton)
-> Since the 19th century: society has become the object of research: how to study the society?
-> Is society characterized by causal relations, explanations and theories?
-> Is society reducible to the individuals that live in it?
-> Are “subjects” (researchers) standing apart from the “objects of research”?
Insider perspective: we can’t understand a group unless we’re a part of that group
Opposition: you become biased, “apologetic” descripitons
Outsider perspective: preserve objectivity, be an outsider
Opposition: too much emphasis on explanation, false reduction of insider perspective
Solution: stranger perspective
-> Supposed to bring together the both
Review:
-> Sloppy science is a threat to the common-sense ideal of science
-> Sloppy science shows: reflecting on science is necessary
Central themes of PSS (philosophy of social science):
-> Naturalism: the problem of understanding and explanation in social sciences (can we use the
concept “causality” in society?)
-> Reductionism: the problem of the relation between holism and individualism
-> Normativity: the function of norms, values and rules in the social sciences
,Philosophy of Science
Analyzing the four quadrants:
Systems:
Practices:
Agents:
Actors:
Schurz’s perspective of the stranger: the bridge between the quadrants
, Philosophy of Science
Lecture 2: 3 Feb. 21
3 main themes again: naturalism, reductivism, normativity
The empirical-analytical method
Method of basic inductive inference vs. method of hypothetical-deductive inference
Basic principles of EA method:
-> Free of value
-> Third-person objective
-> Focused on objective knowledge
-> Use of statistical analysis
-> This is the common-sense view of science
Logical positivism (logical empiricism)
Vienna Circle and Logical Positivism, aka:
-> Wiener Kreis (Carnap, Neurath, Schlick)
-> Logical empiricism (Nagel, Hempel, Ayer)
Motivation of LP: the empirical sciences must replace theological and metaphysical world views, i.e.
“the unreasonable powers of church and political ideologies”
Motivating question: what’s the relationship between researcher and object of research?
Other important features (assumptions) of LP’s conception of science
-> Related to Schutz’s outsider perspective
Classical rationality: arguments are only valid if they result from logical reasoning or empirical proof
Criterion of meaning: statements have meaning or no meaning; meaningful statements are:
analytical statements (like: all triangles are 180 degrees,
general truths that cannot change) or synthetic
statements that can be verified
According to positivists: All other statements have no
meaning
Verification and confirmation: ------------->
