Philosophy of science
Lecture 1
Do atoms exist?
Alternatively: Is there such a thing as the human mind? Do numbers exist? Are there biological
races? Is water H20?
Normal response Philosopher’s response
1. Yes, of course! 1. Ok, but why?
2. Because science says so. 2. Which science (which one)?
3. Our best scientific theory 3. What makes a scientific theory better
4. Just use the scientific method (gives us than another? And are we sure that there
an answer of what is there and what is “a best one”?
isn’t?) 4. What is that? Is there even a scientific
method? (Are there multiple? Does every
science have a different method? Which
one is THE scientific method?)
Ancient Greek understanding of “atom” (ἄτομος): Smallest possible unit of matter; eternal, unchangeable,
indestructible, indivisible, uncuttable
Today: We know that nuclear reactions happen by splitting atoms
Plum pudding model of the atom (THOMSON, RUTHERFORD model of the atom (1911): positively
1904): charged nucleus orbited by electrons with empty
Solid sphere of positive charge with electrons (in space in between
the middle) embedded (like plums in a pudding) = what we think of when you ask “Do atoms
= respectable scientific theory exist?”
“Do atoms exist?” as an example of the core metaphysical and epistemological questions of
the philosophy of science
Metaphysics: what entities exists? In what sense of “existing”? And what is their nature?
- Deals with what there is “Does my laptop exist? Do you exist? Are there states? Do states exist the
same way as my water bottle?
, - Fundamental disciplines in philosophy “What exists? In what sense of existing? What is the
nature of these things that do exist?”
Epistemology: What is knowledge? How to obtain, transmit, store, and compare knowledge?
- Deep philosophical question: What is knowledge?
Metaphysics and epistemology are deeply intertwined:
Fight between metaphysics & epistemology: What is more fundamental?
Metaphysics Epistemology
First, we need to establish what is out there, we To know what’s there you need to know how to
need to know what exists and then ask ourselves know.
how we can come to know about them. Because if You need to know how to acquire any knowledge
it isn’t there and in what sense it is there then we about what’s out there
can’t really talk about acquiring any knowledge
about it.
➔ We need to know what’s there before we
can acquire knowledge about the thing
that’s supposedly there
Which one is more fundamental? Depends on who you ask
Most likely neither are fundamental (they are for sure part the baseline of philosophy → core disciplines of
the philosophy department)
This course: focus on the epistemological side of the philosophy of science (What makes the scientific
theory good? Better than the other? Better in what sense?) (but metaphysics is never far away)
A one-slide overview of the philosophy of science of the past 100 years
Layman’s verificationism (1900-today) “It always starter earlier than you think and its always more
complex than you think”
- Scientific theories are verified, that you somehow can prove things exist (like atoms/corona)
- There is always this problem (problem of induction = you can’t observe or verify everything “How
far can you really verify something?”).
- Other problem: historic problem: “If scientific theories are verified, how come we abandon them
(when something better comes along)?”
Popper’s falsificationism (1930s)
- Popper is the start of our historic problem. We don’t know that falsification is true, but it isn’t
proven wrong so then it’s a scientific theory.
- A theory doesn’t exist anymore, when it’s been proven otherwise (observe the opposite of the
theory), then it’s FALSIFIED
- Difference between a scientific theory and a not scientific theory
➔ Scientific theories can be falsified (open to falsification)
Kuhn’s historicism (1960s)
- Problem falsification theory
- None of these philosophical theories about “What makes a theory scientific or not?” isn’t what
scientist usually do. They don’t produce a theory and try to prove that it’s wrong.
, - He gives us an account of how science actually behaves.
- Problem: He doesn’t give us an answer on the demarcation problem “What is science and what is
not science?” He talks about what science is like (gives up on the core question of Popper &
Layman).
Lakatos’s rational reconstructions (later 1960s)
- Agrees with Kuhn: Historicism & philosophical theories are needed “What science should be like.”
- He is convinced that the demarcation problem is important (societal relevance) “What makes a
scientifical theory better than a not scientifical theory?” “Which scientific theory is better than
the other one?”
Answer: It’s not theories, it’s research programs (& real discovery)
Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism (1970s)
- “Anything goes” No matter what you came up with (the philosophers) (for the normative answers
for distinction between science and not science), you can give us any kind of account, it will fail
for some historical episode.
- Writes book against methods “He seems to be giving up on all kinds of rationalities and
fundamental assumption that are dear to the philosophers in his time (he’s a rebel)
Bloor’s sociological reductionism (1970s)
- Idea: All this philosophical thinking is not really helpful. We need to have sociological accounts of
“Why do people believe the things that they do?”
→ Regardless of what they believe is true or false
- No distinction made between “This is properly scientific or not” “This is good kind or bad kind of
knowledge”)
The practice-turn in the philosophy of science (roughly starting with Kuhn)
- What scientist do in their day-to-day practices (the way scientists publish their stuff: how the
publication process goes (+problems)
- Relevant to understand scientific knowledge (practices)
Bv: To keep science alive & generate it: we need to understand how scientists work when they
work in the lab → studying practises (publication practices)
Any historical question “When did it start?” It always started earlier & it’s always more complicated. (Did it
start with Kuhn?)
Today: a rich motley of streams of research (e.g.
- Metaphysical questions (Do atoms exist?)
-
- integrated history and philosophy of science (try to mish-mash historical & philosophical work to
answer philosophical questions) (Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend)
- Science and technology studies (Bloor inspired) (also Kuhn)
- Sociology of scientific knowledge (full on Bloor inspired): No philosophy but using sociologic
methods to try and understand what scientifical knowledge is like.
, Lecture 2
Science is great!
Helps us to explain and understand the world (we know many facts about the world because of science
(biological, chemical, social, brain function, mind of human...)
It’s harder to disagree with science than political/religious views
Science allows us to make technology → we can understand & manipulate the world
Special kind of knowledge; “Why is it special? Partial answer”
- Hard and reliable sort of knowledge (trustworthy, difficult to deny)
- Consensus (large-scale agreement about scientific facts, lots of consensus)
- This is a partial answer to why scientific knowledge is special
Worthy of philosophical attention (philosophy of science [and mathematics])
➔ Philosophy of science is built on this question “What makes scientific knowledge so great?”
Obvious question: what makes scientific knowledge so special?
Knowledge as justified true belief (JTB account of knowledge)
Someone knows something if they
- Belief that something is the case (e.g. “I believe that there are students in my class”) → I believe it
but it’s also a matter of fact
- Their belief is true (e.g. “it really is the case that there are students in my class”)
• They are justified in holding their belief (e.g. “I can see the students” → justified my
believe) vision gives us a form of justification
- JTB is the classical account of knowledge of western philosophy
- Lots of problems with JTB (e.g. Gettier cases)
• Our focus: justification.
• Idea: what makes scientific knowledge special? The special and particularly convincing
justifications of science!
Gettier cases: criticize knowledge as justified true believe (Bv: You believe there’s a sheep, you see a
sheep, but actually it’s a white dog but you don’t know and you still believe)
Knowledge needs to be true, it’s a believe that actually holds → it’s a true believe
e.g. I think it’s raining in Berlin, and it is → that isn’t true believe because I just guessed it (it is not justified)
Scientific justifications are special
➔ Science has a scientific method to generate justification
Empirical testing
- Test their theories, hypothesis,
Lecture 1
Do atoms exist?
Alternatively: Is there such a thing as the human mind? Do numbers exist? Are there biological
races? Is water H20?
Normal response Philosopher’s response
1. Yes, of course! 1. Ok, but why?
2. Because science says so. 2. Which science (which one)?
3. Our best scientific theory 3. What makes a scientific theory better
4. Just use the scientific method (gives us than another? And are we sure that there
an answer of what is there and what is “a best one”?
isn’t?) 4. What is that? Is there even a scientific
method? (Are there multiple? Does every
science have a different method? Which
one is THE scientific method?)
Ancient Greek understanding of “atom” (ἄτομος): Smallest possible unit of matter; eternal, unchangeable,
indestructible, indivisible, uncuttable
Today: We know that nuclear reactions happen by splitting atoms
Plum pudding model of the atom (THOMSON, RUTHERFORD model of the atom (1911): positively
1904): charged nucleus orbited by electrons with empty
Solid sphere of positive charge with electrons (in space in between
the middle) embedded (like plums in a pudding) = what we think of when you ask “Do atoms
= respectable scientific theory exist?”
“Do atoms exist?” as an example of the core metaphysical and epistemological questions of
the philosophy of science
Metaphysics: what entities exists? In what sense of “existing”? And what is their nature?
- Deals with what there is “Does my laptop exist? Do you exist? Are there states? Do states exist the
same way as my water bottle?
, - Fundamental disciplines in philosophy “What exists? In what sense of existing? What is the
nature of these things that do exist?”
Epistemology: What is knowledge? How to obtain, transmit, store, and compare knowledge?
- Deep philosophical question: What is knowledge?
Metaphysics and epistemology are deeply intertwined:
Fight between metaphysics & epistemology: What is more fundamental?
Metaphysics Epistemology
First, we need to establish what is out there, we To know what’s there you need to know how to
need to know what exists and then ask ourselves know.
how we can come to know about them. Because if You need to know how to acquire any knowledge
it isn’t there and in what sense it is there then we about what’s out there
can’t really talk about acquiring any knowledge
about it.
➔ We need to know what’s there before we
can acquire knowledge about the thing
that’s supposedly there
Which one is more fundamental? Depends on who you ask
Most likely neither are fundamental (they are for sure part the baseline of philosophy → core disciplines of
the philosophy department)
This course: focus on the epistemological side of the philosophy of science (What makes the scientific
theory good? Better than the other? Better in what sense?) (but metaphysics is never far away)
A one-slide overview of the philosophy of science of the past 100 years
Layman’s verificationism (1900-today) “It always starter earlier than you think and its always more
complex than you think”
- Scientific theories are verified, that you somehow can prove things exist (like atoms/corona)
- There is always this problem (problem of induction = you can’t observe or verify everything “How
far can you really verify something?”).
- Other problem: historic problem: “If scientific theories are verified, how come we abandon them
(when something better comes along)?”
Popper’s falsificationism (1930s)
- Popper is the start of our historic problem. We don’t know that falsification is true, but it isn’t
proven wrong so then it’s a scientific theory.
- A theory doesn’t exist anymore, when it’s been proven otherwise (observe the opposite of the
theory), then it’s FALSIFIED
- Difference between a scientific theory and a not scientific theory
➔ Scientific theories can be falsified (open to falsification)
Kuhn’s historicism (1960s)
- Problem falsification theory
- None of these philosophical theories about “What makes a theory scientific or not?” isn’t what
scientist usually do. They don’t produce a theory and try to prove that it’s wrong.
, - He gives us an account of how science actually behaves.
- Problem: He doesn’t give us an answer on the demarcation problem “What is science and what is
not science?” He talks about what science is like (gives up on the core question of Popper &
Layman).
Lakatos’s rational reconstructions (later 1960s)
- Agrees with Kuhn: Historicism & philosophical theories are needed “What science should be like.”
- He is convinced that the demarcation problem is important (societal relevance) “What makes a
scientifical theory better than a not scientifical theory?” “Which scientific theory is better than
the other one?”
Answer: It’s not theories, it’s research programs (& real discovery)
Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism (1970s)
- “Anything goes” No matter what you came up with (the philosophers) (for the normative answers
for distinction between science and not science), you can give us any kind of account, it will fail
for some historical episode.
- Writes book against methods “He seems to be giving up on all kinds of rationalities and
fundamental assumption that are dear to the philosophers in his time (he’s a rebel)
Bloor’s sociological reductionism (1970s)
- Idea: All this philosophical thinking is not really helpful. We need to have sociological accounts of
“Why do people believe the things that they do?”
→ Regardless of what they believe is true or false
- No distinction made between “This is properly scientific or not” “This is good kind or bad kind of
knowledge”)
The practice-turn in the philosophy of science (roughly starting with Kuhn)
- What scientist do in their day-to-day practices (the way scientists publish their stuff: how the
publication process goes (+problems)
- Relevant to understand scientific knowledge (practices)
Bv: To keep science alive & generate it: we need to understand how scientists work when they
work in the lab → studying practises (publication practices)
Any historical question “When did it start?” It always started earlier & it’s always more complicated. (Did it
start with Kuhn?)
Today: a rich motley of streams of research (e.g.
- Metaphysical questions (Do atoms exist?)
-
- integrated history and philosophy of science (try to mish-mash historical & philosophical work to
answer philosophical questions) (Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend)
- Science and technology studies (Bloor inspired) (also Kuhn)
- Sociology of scientific knowledge (full on Bloor inspired): No philosophy but using sociologic
methods to try and understand what scientifical knowledge is like.
, Lecture 2
Science is great!
Helps us to explain and understand the world (we know many facts about the world because of science
(biological, chemical, social, brain function, mind of human...)
It’s harder to disagree with science than political/religious views
Science allows us to make technology → we can understand & manipulate the world
Special kind of knowledge; “Why is it special? Partial answer”
- Hard and reliable sort of knowledge (trustworthy, difficult to deny)
- Consensus (large-scale agreement about scientific facts, lots of consensus)
- This is a partial answer to why scientific knowledge is special
Worthy of philosophical attention (philosophy of science [and mathematics])
➔ Philosophy of science is built on this question “What makes scientific knowledge so great?”
Obvious question: what makes scientific knowledge so special?
Knowledge as justified true belief (JTB account of knowledge)
Someone knows something if they
- Belief that something is the case (e.g. “I believe that there are students in my class”) → I believe it
but it’s also a matter of fact
- Their belief is true (e.g. “it really is the case that there are students in my class”)
• They are justified in holding their belief (e.g. “I can see the students” → justified my
believe) vision gives us a form of justification
- JTB is the classical account of knowledge of western philosophy
- Lots of problems with JTB (e.g. Gettier cases)
• Our focus: justification.
• Idea: what makes scientific knowledge special? The special and particularly convincing
justifications of science!
Gettier cases: criticize knowledge as justified true believe (Bv: You believe there’s a sheep, you see a
sheep, but actually it’s a white dog but you don’t know and you still believe)
Knowledge needs to be true, it’s a believe that actually holds → it’s a true believe
e.g. I think it’s raining in Berlin, and it is → that isn’t true believe because I just guessed it (it is not justified)
Scientific justifications are special
➔ Science has a scientific method to generate justification
Empirical testing
- Test their theories, hypothesis,
