PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
WEEK 1
LECTURE 1 – INTRO
Science vs. non-science
• What distinguishes science from non-science?
• What’s special about scientific knowledge as opposed to other kinds of information or
knowledge?
=> This is one example of a philosophy of science question
Philosophy of science
Philosophy of science – investigating the social sciences
• 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 objective? 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?
Social science – investigating the social world
The demarcation problem
Logical positivism;
• Vienna Circle: group of scientists (in early 20th century Vienna) reflecting on philosophical
questions about science
• Aim: development of a strictly scientific worldview– they believed that real knowledge
should be based on observations
• Against speculative philosophy, religious ideas, traditional worldviews
Side note
• Why the word ‘positivism’?
• From ‘positive’, in the sense of restricting self to ‘what is posited’, ‘what is given’, ‘what is
laid down’, - don’t go beyond empirical
- not in the sense of ‘happy’, ‘in a good mood’, ’constructive
Ideals – 2 needed things
• Strict empiricism: knowledge can only come from (empirical) observation – senses; eyes..
- No place for speculative claims that are not based on observation!
• Use of formal logic and mathematics to create an ideal and precise language for science
- To guard against unwarranted terminology and against leaps to conclusions and
unsupported theories
Core ideas 1;
Analytic vs. synthetic statements
, Analytic: true/false just on the basis of the meaning of the words used. (conventions
for how we use words and symbols) – it needs to be part of the definition, all
definitions
• Examples ‘All bachelors are unmarried.’
• Examples ‘5 + 7 = 12’
• Examples ‘A ‘lusitanism’ is a word or expression derived from the Portuguese
language and incorporated into another language.
• Definitions, logic, and mathematics are all analytic statements - Empirical scientific
research is the only way of determining the truth or falsity of these statements
Synthetic: true/false on the basis of the meaning of the words used and what the
world is like. (describe the world)
• Examples ‘Marc is a bachelor.’
• Examples ‘All polar bears are white.’ – not part of definition/ meaning of bear that
it might be right that’s why its not analytic
-empirical sciences are concerned with synthetic statements
• Synthetic statements describe the world, analytic ones only concern conventions for how we
use words and symbols
Core ideas 2:
• 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: the meaning of a synthetic statement is its
method of verification – in order for a statement to be scientific it needs to be
verifiable (you need to describe something that can be done that describes what is true
or false)
Verifiable (meaningful) or not?
• ‘This rock falls down with an acceleration of 9,8 m/s2.’ – verifiable
• ‘Voter turnout in the last election was at an historical low.’ – verifiable ( assuming
we have the historical record)
• ‘This culture is strongly matriarchal.’- it isn’t but it can be made into one
• ‘The nothing nothings.’ – not verifiable
• ‘God is almighty, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. – not verifiable because not
observable
• Verifiability as demarcation criterion
•Only statements that satisfy the verifiability criterion are scientific, other statements
are non-scientific – to show whether true of false + draws line between science
• (Logic, mathematics, and statistics help to formulate scientific statements in a
precise manner.)
Turtorial definition –
- Verification criteria – (verifiability) – empirically based, it is necessary that its
observable proof not only theoretical.
- the meaning of a sentence consist in its method of verification, scientific
statements must always be connected to empirical observations (something that
happed and is real)
, - Method – induction; logical method out of many observed methods you can draw a
conclusion (all swans are white- you make a specific number of observations and base
your results on that induction problem!)
- Problem of verifiability; draws conclusions before knowing the correct result, this is
done by reconfirmation of theory, without allowing opportunity to be wrong (over
generalising)(problem for poper)
Core ideas 3:
Inductive method: from observations to general theories and empirical regularities /
laws
• Observations give rise to hypotheses and theories
• And they serve to support / confirm them
• Let the data (observations) ‘speak for themselves’
• Example: behaviourism
- Dog is conditioned to show responses
• Exclusive focus on observable behaviour in response
to external stimuli (In psychology)
• Nothing about internal cognitive processes
• Because those are unobservable / unverifiable
Karl Popper’s core ideas
• Fallibility and tentativeness of human knowledge
• Dogmatic vs. critical thinking – science is about looking for errors and trying to correct
them/ to prove theory's wrong
- Believed all can make mistakes – scientific knowledge always tentative
Problem of induction;
• Reasoning from individual observations to general conclusions is logically invalid.
- inductive reasoning; go from a limited number of observations to a general
conclusion ( not strictly valid as you make a limited number of observations eg; all
swans are white)
• So induction can never completely support general scientific laws and theories.
- Popper: no use for induction in science! – as there is always some uncertainty
Falsifiability as demarcation criterion;
• Scientific knowledge is falsifiable knowledge. – you need to be able to prove a claim wrong
• Scientific statements ought to be able to ‘clash’ with the world.
• It must be possible to prove them false through experiments and observation
1. Unicorns exist and don’t exist. – false not falsifiable
2. Unicorns either exist or they don’t. – not falsifiable it allows for everything
3. Unicorns exist. – not falsifiable – as you cant know for sure that they don’t exist
4. Unicorns don’t exist. –falsifiable
Examples of unfalsifiable theories;
• Freud: Every little boy has an Oedipus complex, or is in denial of it. (always came
up for excuses of Why it did fit their theory)
• 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 –
, (what popper believed was wrong) people that believed in so always would come up
with explanation as to why it did not occur
Example of a falsified theory
Secularization Thesis (popular in 19th-20th century sociology): Through
Enlightenment modernization, rationalization, combined with the ascent of science
and technology, religious authority diminishes in all aspects of social life and
governance. – POPER BELIVES THIS SHOULD BE REJECTED
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 (so far)
Comparison: Popper vs. Positivism
Positivism – mainly about gatekeeping – falsifiability
• Fallibility and risk-taking
• Theoretical conjectures as starting points
• Get rid of bad ideas as you go
Vs
Popper - verifiability
• Striving for certainty
• Observations as starting points
• Don’t let any bad ideas in
Course overview & organization:
Course theme 1: Naturalism
• Are the social sciences different from the natural sciences? And, if so, how?
• Studying people and society vs. studying physical particles, objects, systems
• Insider vs. outsider perspective (in explaining human behaviour)
• Understanding vs. explaining
• Are there laws of nature, causality, mechanisms in the social sciences?
Course theme 2: Reductonism
• Is social science reducible to psychology and neuroscience, or even further to the natural
sciences?
• Or are they irreducible and are social-level descriptions, theories, and explanations
ineliminable?
• Methodological individualism
• Is talk about ‘families’, ‘organizations’, ‘institutions’, ‘nations’, etc. shorthand for talk
about individuals and their actions?
• Should a good explanation be couched in terms of individuals?
Course theme 3: Normativity
Normality of social science;
• Should (and can) social science be value- free?
• What does that mean and what does it have to do with objectivity, neutrality, and
trustworthiness?
Normality in social science;
WEEK 1
LECTURE 1 – INTRO
Science vs. non-science
• What distinguishes science from non-science?
• What’s special about scientific knowledge as opposed to other kinds of information or
knowledge?
=> This is one example of a philosophy of science question
Philosophy of science
Philosophy of science – investigating the social sciences
• 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 objective? 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?
Social science – investigating the social world
The demarcation problem
Logical positivism;
• Vienna Circle: group of scientists (in early 20th century Vienna) reflecting on philosophical
questions about science
• Aim: development of a strictly scientific worldview– they believed that real knowledge
should be based on observations
• Against speculative philosophy, religious ideas, traditional worldviews
Side note
• Why the word ‘positivism’?
• From ‘positive’, in the sense of restricting self to ‘what is posited’, ‘what is given’, ‘what is
laid down’, - don’t go beyond empirical
- not in the sense of ‘happy’, ‘in a good mood’, ’constructive
Ideals – 2 needed things
• Strict empiricism: knowledge can only come from (empirical) observation – senses; eyes..
- No place for speculative claims that are not based on observation!
• Use of formal logic and mathematics to create an ideal and precise language for science
- To guard against unwarranted terminology and against leaps to conclusions and
unsupported theories
Core ideas 1;
Analytic vs. synthetic statements
, Analytic: true/false just on the basis of the meaning of the words used. (conventions
for how we use words and symbols) – it needs to be part of the definition, all
definitions
• Examples ‘All bachelors are unmarried.’
• Examples ‘5 + 7 = 12’
• Examples ‘A ‘lusitanism’ is a word or expression derived from the Portuguese
language and incorporated into another language.
• Definitions, logic, and mathematics are all analytic statements - Empirical scientific
research is the only way of determining the truth or falsity of these statements
Synthetic: true/false on the basis of the meaning of the words used and what the
world is like. (describe the world)
• Examples ‘Marc is a bachelor.’
• Examples ‘All polar bears are white.’ – not part of definition/ meaning of bear that
it might be right that’s why its not analytic
-empirical sciences are concerned with synthetic statements
• Synthetic statements describe the world, analytic ones only concern conventions for how we
use words and symbols
Core ideas 2:
• 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: the meaning of a synthetic statement is its
method of verification – in order for a statement to be scientific it needs to be
verifiable (you need to describe something that can be done that describes what is true
or false)
Verifiable (meaningful) or not?
• ‘This rock falls down with an acceleration of 9,8 m/s2.’ – verifiable
• ‘Voter turnout in the last election was at an historical low.’ – verifiable ( assuming
we have the historical record)
• ‘This culture is strongly matriarchal.’- it isn’t but it can be made into one
• ‘The nothing nothings.’ – not verifiable
• ‘God is almighty, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. – not verifiable because not
observable
• Verifiability as demarcation criterion
•Only statements that satisfy the verifiability criterion are scientific, other statements
are non-scientific – to show whether true of false + draws line between science
• (Logic, mathematics, and statistics help to formulate scientific statements in a
precise manner.)
Turtorial definition –
- Verification criteria – (verifiability) – empirically based, it is necessary that its
observable proof not only theoretical.
- the meaning of a sentence consist in its method of verification, scientific
statements must always be connected to empirical observations (something that
happed and is real)
, - Method – induction; logical method out of many observed methods you can draw a
conclusion (all swans are white- you make a specific number of observations and base
your results on that induction problem!)
- Problem of verifiability; draws conclusions before knowing the correct result, this is
done by reconfirmation of theory, without allowing opportunity to be wrong (over
generalising)(problem for poper)
Core ideas 3:
Inductive method: from observations to general theories and empirical regularities /
laws
• Observations give rise to hypotheses and theories
• And they serve to support / confirm them
• Let the data (observations) ‘speak for themselves’
• Example: behaviourism
- Dog is conditioned to show responses
• Exclusive focus on observable behaviour in response
to external stimuli (In psychology)
• Nothing about internal cognitive processes
• Because those are unobservable / unverifiable
Karl Popper’s core ideas
• Fallibility and tentativeness of human knowledge
• Dogmatic vs. critical thinking – science is about looking for errors and trying to correct
them/ to prove theory's wrong
- Believed all can make mistakes – scientific knowledge always tentative
Problem of induction;
• Reasoning from individual observations to general conclusions is logically invalid.
- inductive reasoning; go from a limited number of observations to a general
conclusion ( not strictly valid as you make a limited number of observations eg; all
swans are white)
• So induction can never completely support general scientific laws and theories.
- Popper: no use for induction in science! – as there is always some uncertainty
Falsifiability as demarcation criterion;
• Scientific knowledge is falsifiable knowledge. – you need to be able to prove a claim wrong
• Scientific statements ought to be able to ‘clash’ with the world.
• It must be possible to prove them false through experiments and observation
1. Unicorns exist and don’t exist. – false not falsifiable
2. Unicorns either exist or they don’t. – not falsifiable it allows for everything
3. Unicorns exist. – not falsifiable – as you cant know for sure that they don’t exist
4. Unicorns don’t exist. –falsifiable
Examples of unfalsifiable theories;
• Freud: Every little boy has an Oedipus complex, or is in denial of it. (always came
up for excuses of Why it did fit their theory)
• 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 –
, (what popper believed was wrong) people that believed in so always would come up
with explanation as to why it did not occur
Example of a falsified theory
Secularization Thesis (popular in 19th-20th century sociology): Through
Enlightenment modernization, rationalization, combined with the ascent of science
and technology, religious authority diminishes in all aspects of social life and
governance. – POPER BELIVES THIS SHOULD BE REJECTED
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 (so far)
Comparison: Popper vs. Positivism
Positivism – mainly about gatekeeping – falsifiability
• Fallibility and risk-taking
• Theoretical conjectures as starting points
• Get rid of bad ideas as you go
Vs
Popper - verifiability
• Striving for certainty
• Observations as starting points
• Don’t let any bad ideas in
Course overview & organization:
Course theme 1: Naturalism
• Are the social sciences different from the natural sciences? And, if so, how?
• Studying people and society vs. studying physical particles, objects, systems
• Insider vs. outsider perspective (in explaining human behaviour)
• Understanding vs. explaining
• Are there laws of nature, causality, mechanisms in the social sciences?
Course theme 2: Reductonism
• Is social science reducible to psychology and neuroscience, or even further to the natural
sciences?
• Or are they irreducible and are social-level descriptions, theories, and explanations
ineliminable?
• Methodological individualism
• Is talk about ‘families’, ‘organizations’, ‘institutions’, ‘nations’, etc. shorthand for talk
about individuals and their actions?
• Should a good explanation be couched in terms of individuals?
Course theme 3: Normativity
Normality of social science;
• Should (and can) social science be value- free?
• What does that mean and what does it have to do with objectivity, neutrality, and
trustworthiness?
Normality in social science;
