Lecture 2
Popper (1963)
Making the difference between science and pseudo-science: different empirical method which with
science is inductive (through observations and experiments). However this method does not always
meet scientific standards.
Some theories have more in common with myths than science and seem to have great explanatory
power: they seem to be able to explain everything that happens in the field of practice (like Marx/Adler).
Once someone is enlightened with this theory, one sees verifications of the theory everywhere. This fact
that observations in the world always seem to fit the theory isn’t a strength, but a weakness.
If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then a theory is refuted. The theory is
then: incompatible with certain possible results of observation
= different from theories which are compatible with the most almost every type human behaviour, so
that it’s practically impossible to describe any human behavior that might is not a verification of these
theories.
This leads to considerations:
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory if we look for
confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions= if we should have
expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted
the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a
theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a
virtue of a theory but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify/ refute it. Testability = falsifiability; but
there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation,
than others; thus they take greater risks. Theories with vague interpretations/prophecies
prevent refutation of the theory, since if one predicts something very vaguely, predictions can
hardly fail. This escapes falsification and destroys testability of the theory.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the
theory; thus if it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory =
corroborating evidence.
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for
example by introducing ad hoc assumptions, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way
that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible and rescues a theory from
falsification, but it destroys or lowers its scientific status. ="Conventionalist twist/stratagem."
, A conventionalist twist or strategen us when instead of accepting refutations, one starts to re-
interpret the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. This rescues the theory from
refutations, but at the price of making the theory irrefutable and thus less scientific/weaker.
If a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical", it is not automatically unimportant,
insignificant, "meaningless," or "nonsensical”. Some theories describe facts, but in the manner of myths
making it hard to test. However, almost all scientific theories originate from myths, and a myth may
contain important anticipations of scientific theories. But such a theory cannot claim to be backed by
empirical evidence in the scientific sense—even if it’s the result of observation.
The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability or testability.
This criterion of falsifiability is to solve the problem of drawing a line between the statements of
empirical sciences and all other statements (non-scientific)
= problem of demarcation
The criterion of falsifiability is a solution to this problem of demarcation: statements or systems of
statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or
conceivable, observations.
Lecture 3
Kuhn (1961)
To be scientific is to be objective and open-minded. However, individual scientists are often not; one
often tries to yield results conform with the foreseen pattern. Pre-conception and resistance to findings
not conform with those conceptions are rather rule than exception. This can choke off scientific progress,
but this is also symptomatic of characteristics upon which the continuing vitality of research depends.
Those characteristics= dogmatism of mature science.
Scientific education inculcates what knowledge has been previously gained: commitment to a particular
way of viewing the world and practicing the science in it. This commitment is important for productive
research: helps with defining problems and solutions and provides a detector for trouble spots in
innovation/research. Commitment can be a source of controversy and resistance, but thus also of
importance for innovation in science.
A paradigm= a possession which enables to make the foundation of a field to push on to more concrete
problems.
- a fundamental scientific achievement and one which includes both a theory and some
applications to the results of experiment and observation.
- an open-ended achievement which leaves all sorts of research to be done.
- An accepted achievement: received by a group whose members no longer try to rival it or to
create alternates for it: they extend and exploit it
1
, Paradigms which enhance research effectiveness are not always permanent: the developmental pattern
of mature science is usually from paradigm to paradigm.
The research work that any given paradigm permits results in lasting contributions to the body of
scientific knowledge and technique holds, but paradigms are very often swept aside and replaced by
others. There is no resource to notions like truth or validity of paradigms. Declaring an older paradigm
out of date/rejecting the approach of earlier paradigms is rejected the core of important scientific
perceptions which would later be forced to return.
Scientists are committed to a paradigm-based way of regarding and investigating nature. Their paradigm
tells them about the sort of entities with which the population behave and it informs them of the
questions that can be asked about nature and of the techniques that can be used to find answers.
Paradigms tells scientists a lot.
Scientists given a paradigm strive with all their might and skill to bring it into closer agreement with
nature. Much of their effort, especially in the early stages of paradigm development is directed to
articulating the paradigm, making it more precise in areas that have been vague before.
There are always many areas in which a paradigm is expected to work but where it has not yet been
applied. There is also always much fascinating work to be done in improving the match between a
paradigm and nature in an area where at least limited agreement has already been demonstrated.
2 important characteristics of paradigm based research
- Problems are often paradigm dependent and could not have even been stated in the absence of
an appropriate paradigm. Commitment to a paradigm is often needed to provide adequate
motivation in order to solve problems, build instruments.
- Also, reference to the anticipated outcome of a research project: the detail of the outcome is
known in advance due to the reliance on the paradigm and anticipated outcomes based on this
paradigm. It is often in this type of research not the case to uncover the unknown, but to obtain
the known.
Advantages of paradigm based research
Nature is too complex to be explored at random: you must know what to look for and where to look for
it
1. The matching of nature and paradigm results in knowledge and understanding that could not
have been achieved in another way
- It frees scientists to engage themselves with tiny puzzles
- Even though the scientist may not be an explorer, he does again and again discover new
phenomena and basic theories emerge from continuing practise of research.
2. The practitioner of science knows what sort of result he should gain from his research: he is
therefore in a favourable position to recognize when a research problem has gone astray. The
recognition and isolation of problem anomalies resulting from this leads to innovations in
2
Popper (1963)
Making the difference between science and pseudo-science: different empirical method which with
science is inductive (through observations and experiments). However this method does not always
meet scientific standards.
Some theories have more in common with myths than science and seem to have great explanatory
power: they seem to be able to explain everything that happens in the field of practice (like Marx/Adler).
Once someone is enlightened with this theory, one sees verifications of the theory everywhere. This fact
that observations in the world always seem to fit the theory isn’t a strength, but a weakness.
If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then a theory is refuted. The theory is
then: incompatible with certain possible results of observation
= different from theories which are compatible with the most almost every type human behaviour, so
that it’s practically impossible to describe any human behavior that might is not a verification of these
theories.
This leads to considerations:
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory if we look for
confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions= if we should have
expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted
the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a
theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a
virtue of a theory but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify/ refute it. Testability = falsifiability; but
there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation,
than others; thus they take greater risks. Theories with vague interpretations/prophecies
prevent refutation of the theory, since if one predicts something very vaguely, predictions can
hardly fail. This escapes falsification and destroys testability of the theory.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the
theory; thus if it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory =
corroborating evidence.
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for
example by introducing ad hoc assumptions, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way
that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible and rescues a theory from
falsification, but it destroys or lowers its scientific status. ="Conventionalist twist/stratagem."
, A conventionalist twist or strategen us when instead of accepting refutations, one starts to re-
interpret the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. This rescues the theory from
refutations, but at the price of making the theory irrefutable and thus less scientific/weaker.
If a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical", it is not automatically unimportant,
insignificant, "meaningless," or "nonsensical”. Some theories describe facts, but in the manner of myths
making it hard to test. However, almost all scientific theories originate from myths, and a myth may
contain important anticipations of scientific theories. But such a theory cannot claim to be backed by
empirical evidence in the scientific sense—even if it’s the result of observation.
The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability or testability.
This criterion of falsifiability is to solve the problem of drawing a line between the statements of
empirical sciences and all other statements (non-scientific)
= problem of demarcation
The criterion of falsifiability is a solution to this problem of demarcation: statements or systems of
statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or
conceivable, observations.
Lecture 3
Kuhn (1961)
To be scientific is to be objective and open-minded. However, individual scientists are often not; one
often tries to yield results conform with the foreseen pattern. Pre-conception and resistance to findings
not conform with those conceptions are rather rule than exception. This can choke off scientific progress,
but this is also symptomatic of characteristics upon which the continuing vitality of research depends.
Those characteristics= dogmatism of mature science.
Scientific education inculcates what knowledge has been previously gained: commitment to a particular
way of viewing the world and practicing the science in it. This commitment is important for productive
research: helps with defining problems and solutions and provides a detector for trouble spots in
innovation/research. Commitment can be a source of controversy and resistance, but thus also of
importance for innovation in science.
A paradigm= a possession which enables to make the foundation of a field to push on to more concrete
problems.
- a fundamental scientific achievement and one which includes both a theory and some
applications to the results of experiment and observation.
- an open-ended achievement which leaves all sorts of research to be done.
- An accepted achievement: received by a group whose members no longer try to rival it or to
create alternates for it: they extend and exploit it
1
, Paradigms which enhance research effectiveness are not always permanent: the developmental pattern
of mature science is usually from paradigm to paradigm.
The research work that any given paradigm permits results in lasting contributions to the body of
scientific knowledge and technique holds, but paradigms are very often swept aside and replaced by
others. There is no resource to notions like truth or validity of paradigms. Declaring an older paradigm
out of date/rejecting the approach of earlier paradigms is rejected the core of important scientific
perceptions which would later be forced to return.
Scientists are committed to a paradigm-based way of regarding and investigating nature. Their paradigm
tells them about the sort of entities with which the population behave and it informs them of the
questions that can be asked about nature and of the techniques that can be used to find answers.
Paradigms tells scientists a lot.
Scientists given a paradigm strive with all their might and skill to bring it into closer agreement with
nature. Much of their effort, especially in the early stages of paradigm development is directed to
articulating the paradigm, making it more precise in areas that have been vague before.
There are always many areas in which a paradigm is expected to work but where it has not yet been
applied. There is also always much fascinating work to be done in improving the match between a
paradigm and nature in an area where at least limited agreement has already been demonstrated.
2 important characteristics of paradigm based research
- Problems are often paradigm dependent and could not have even been stated in the absence of
an appropriate paradigm. Commitment to a paradigm is often needed to provide adequate
motivation in order to solve problems, build instruments.
- Also, reference to the anticipated outcome of a research project: the detail of the outcome is
known in advance due to the reliance on the paradigm and anticipated outcomes based on this
paradigm. It is often in this type of research not the case to uncover the unknown, but to obtain
the known.
Advantages of paradigm based research
Nature is too complex to be explored at random: you must know what to look for and where to look for
it
1. The matching of nature and paradigm results in knowledge and understanding that could not
have been achieved in another way
- It frees scientists to engage themselves with tiny puzzles
- Even though the scientist may not be an explorer, he does again and again discover new
phenomena and basic theories emerge from continuing practise of research.
2. The practitioner of science knows what sort of result he should gain from his research: he is
therefore in a favourable position to recognize when a research problem has gone astray. The
recognition and isolation of problem anomalies resulting from this leads to innovations in
2
