1
Philosophy of Science - ALL LECTURE NOTES
Lecture 1: Introduction to the course - content and organizational aspects:
Science or not science?
What distinguishes science from non-science?
- We need to find something, an underlying idea, of what makes good science.
● Why are flat-Earthism and astrology typically treated as non-science?
● Why are string theory and economics typically treated as science?
● How are string theory and/or economics different from physics, biology, and
chemistry?
- What makes good science?
Circle of scientific method:
What is good science?
Scientific activities lie on a spectrum.
What counts as ‘good’ lies on a continuum...
● Something can be good in one sense but bad in the other.
● Depending on what the science is.
● The everyday practices and methodologies.
● We could be asking very different questions w/r to what makes a science
‘good’:
- What does the theory explain?
- How well do its models predict?
- Can the results be replicated?
- Are its claims congruent with our worldviews?
- What are the ethical limits of science?
● This is the philosophy of science!
Questions for philosophy of science:
● What is scientific knowledge?
● What makes something a fact?
, 2
● How do scientific theories predict and explain?
● What are scientific models? What do models do?
● Can science be truly objective? What is objectivity?
● What role(s) do values play in science if any? They do play a role, but how
large?
● How does science progress? What distinguishes scientific paradigms?
● How can you apply these questions to your own research?
● How can we improve scientific progress?
Social science comes out from natural sciences in a way, but also changed in a
specific way. Because the target is different. Social science - dealing with society
and society activities.
Sloppy science - Diederik Stapel:
Frauded science.
All "bad" data was polished according to his theories or were not even published.
Now true evidence for his papers.
Mislead people.
Lack of research ethics.
Wanted to achieve at all costs.
- Removed from academia for years of fabricated results.
- Fraud in 55 papers (including 10 PhD dissertations).
Exhibits fraud in four ways:
1. Publication bias (failed experiments not published).
2. Lack of replication/reproduction of results.
3. Statistical incompetence.
4. Lack of research ethics.
Conclusion:
● Gives reasons to look critically at scientific research.
● First thought:
- Eliminate sloppy science.
- Enforce the ideals of objective science.
- Make publication of negative results more accepted.
- Require more replication studies.
- Improve quantitative/qualitative methods.
- Promote ethical research standards.
Q: If that succeeds, does this mean science is "objective" after all? NOPE.
Objectivity: a distinction between objective and subjective claims/points of view
about the world.
● Claim: ‘scientific knowledge is objective’.
, 3
● Prerequisite: clear construction of concepts. All concepts have to be
constructed clearly.
● Need to avoid any kind of vagueness and ambiguity.
- Shift from using an everyday language to a formal-scientific language,
in order to establish clarity and avoid equivocality.
● Concepts need to be precise, specified, measurable, and free from personal
bias, so personal convictions and values → will not play any role.
Stapel and other fraudulent cases:
● Sloppy science challenges the ‘common-sense view’ of science, what science
should be:
● Scientists are looking for truth, which means...
● Scientific knowledge is objective ,i.e.
- External influences (values, politics) should play no role.
- Science is all about (empirical) evidence.
● Science is based on a unique method →
● But this supposes that there are scientific facts ‘out there’ to be discovered.
Science is all about empirical work?
Counterexample: “Schroeder’s staircase”:
Two different people - see the same thing differently.
The same object but different perspectives.
● Different people experience the same image in different ways.
● The direction of the stairs is affected by one’s visual perspective.
● This means that it would be difficult to establish facts!
● Facts cannot be given to people directly. It is more complicated than that.
So: "Facts are directly given to careful, unprejudiced observers via the senses".
Counterexample: “X-ray technician”:
Two X-ray technicians are looking at a broken bone.
They see different things as they have different experiences.
● Same information, but the novice X-ray technician does not see what the
expert sees.
● The facts obtained by the X-ray depend on having prior knowledge.
So: “Facts are prior to and independent of theory” also needs qualification…
, 4
Conclusion: it is not always clear - what makes something a science.
● It’s not always clear what makes something a ‘fact’.
● In some cases → facts seem observer-dependent (Schroeder’s staircase).
● In other cases → facts seem observer-independent (X-ray of broken bone).
● What does this say about objectivity?
● Common sense is problematic with science.
“Is what we do pointless?” (Geurts):
It is very difficult to identify causes. It is an open question.
● Identifying ‘causes’ and ‘laws’ in psychology and neuroscience isn’t always
feasible.
● Objectivity can still be problematic even if science isn’t sloppy.
Discussion questions:
1. If 'science is not objective’ then ‘science is no more than an opinion’?
2. If ‘science is fallible’ is it still possible to speak about ‘reliable scientific
results’?
From natural science → to social science:
● Since the 16th/ 17th century: successful natural sciences (Galileo / Newton).
● Since the 19th century: society has become the object of research.
The main question: how to study society?
How/can we make use of the methods of the natural sciences?
● Is society characterized by causal relations, explanations and theories?
(Naturalism)
● Is society (a complex entity) reducible to the individuals (simple entities) that
live in it? (Reductionism)
● Are ‘subjects’ (researchers) standing apart from the ‘objects of research’?
The insider vs. outsider perspective in social research (Smith):
Schutz: there are two conflicting approaches to conduct social science.
Theorem 1: “To be a good scientist – and to be able to describe the deepest levels of
religious experiences – you have to be a member of the religious community under
scrutiny” = the position of the insider.
Philosophy of Science - ALL LECTURE NOTES
Lecture 1: Introduction to the course - content and organizational aspects:
Science or not science?
What distinguishes science from non-science?
- We need to find something, an underlying idea, of what makes good science.
● Why are flat-Earthism and astrology typically treated as non-science?
● Why are string theory and economics typically treated as science?
● How are string theory and/or economics different from physics, biology, and
chemistry?
- What makes good science?
Circle of scientific method:
What is good science?
Scientific activities lie on a spectrum.
What counts as ‘good’ lies on a continuum...
● Something can be good in one sense but bad in the other.
● Depending on what the science is.
● The everyday practices and methodologies.
● We could be asking very different questions w/r to what makes a science
‘good’:
- What does the theory explain?
- How well do its models predict?
- Can the results be replicated?
- Are its claims congruent with our worldviews?
- What are the ethical limits of science?
● This is the philosophy of science!
Questions for philosophy of science:
● What is scientific knowledge?
● What makes something a fact?
, 2
● How do scientific theories predict and explain?
● What are scientific models? What do models do?
● Can science be truly objective? What is objectivity?
● What role(s) do values play in science if any? They do play a role, but how
large?
● How does science progress? What distinguishes scientific paradigms?
● How can you apply these questions to your own research?
● How can we improve scientific progress?
Social science comes out from natural sciences in a way, but also changed in a
specific way. Because the target is different. Social science - dealing with society
and society activities.
Sloppy science - Diederik Stapel:
Frauded science.
All "bad" data was polished according to his theories or were not even published.
Now true evidence for his papers.
Mislead people.
Lack of research ethics.
Wanted to achieve at all costs.
- Removed from academia for years of fabricated results.
- Fraud in 55 papers (including 10 PhD dissertations).
Exhibits fraud in four ways:
1. Publication bias (failed experiments not published).
2. Lack of replication/reproduction of results.
3. Statistical incompetence.
4. Lack of research ethics.
Conclusion:
● Gives reasons to look critically at scientific research.
● First thought:
- Eliminate sloppy science.
- Enforce the ideals of objective science.
- Make publication of negative results more accepted.
- Require more replication studies.
- Improve quantitative/qualitative methods.
- Promote ethical research standards.
Q: If that succeeds, does this mean science is "objective" after all? NOPE.
Objectivity: a distinction between objective and subjective claims/points of view
about the world.
● Claim: ‘scientific knowledge is objective’.
, 3
● Prerequisite: clear construction of concepts. All concepts have to be
constructed clearly.
● Need to avoid any kind of vagueness and ambiguity.
- Shift from using an everyday language to a formal-scientific language,
in order to establish clarity and avoid equivocality.
● Concepts need to be precise, specified, measurable, and free from personal
bias, so personal convictions and values → will not play any role.
Stapel and other fraudulent cases:
● Sloppy science challenges the ‘common-sense view’ of science, what science
should be:
● Scientists are looking for truth, which means...
● Scientific knowledge is objective ,i.e.
- External influences (values, politics) should play no role.
- Science is all about (empirical) evidence.
● Science is based on a unique method →
● But this supposes that there are scientific facts ‘out there’ to be discovered.
Science is all about empirical work?
Counterexample: “Schroeder’s staircase”:
Two different people - see the same thing differently.
The same object but different perspectives.
● Different people experience the same image in different ways.
● The direction of the stairs is affected by one’s visual perspective.
● This means that it would be difficult to establish facts!
● Facts cannot be given to people directly. It is more complicated than that.
So: "Facts are directly given to careful, unprejudiced observers via the senses".
Counterexample: “X-ray technician”:
Two X-ray technicians are looking at a broken bone.
They see different things as they have different experiences.
● Same information, but the novice X-ray technician does not see what the
expert sees.
● The facts obtained by the X-ray depend on having prior knowledge.
So: “Facts are prior to and independent of theory” also needs qualification…
, 4
Conclusion: it is not always clear - what makes something a science.
● It’s not always clear what makes something a ‘fact’.
● In some cases → facts seem observer-dependent (Schroeder’s staircase).
● In other cases → facts seem observer-independent (X-ray of broken bone).
● What does this say about objectivity?
● Common sense is problematic with science.
“Is what we do pointless?” (Geurts):
It is very difficult to identify causes. It is an open question.
● Identifying ‘causes’ and ‘laws’ in psychology and neuroscience isn’t always
feasible.
● Objectivity can still be problematic even if science isn’t sloppy.
Discussion questions:
1. If 'science is not objective’ then ‘science is no more than an opinion’?
2. If ‘science is fallible’ is it still possible to speak about ‘reliable scientific
results’?
From natural science → to social science:
● Since the 16th/ 17th century: successful natural sciences (Galileo / Newton).
● Since the 19th century: society has become the object of research.
The main question: how to study society?
How/can we make use of the methods of the natural sciences?
● Is society characterized by causal relations, explanations and theories?
(Naturalism)
● Is society (a complex entity) reducible to the individuals (simple entities) that
live in it? (Reductionism)
● Are ‘subjects’ (researchers) standing apart from the ‘objects of research’?
The insider vs. outsider perspective in social research (Smith):
Schutz: there are two conflicting approaches to conduct social science.
Theorem 1: “To be a good scientist – and to be able to describe the deepest levels of
religious experiences – you have to be a member of the religious community under
scrutiny” = the position of the insider.
