Philosophy of Science – Lectures 2018-2019
Week 1 – Introduction
Thesis statements on the book and all other readings for every week.
Central questions
﮲ What’s the relation between philosophy and science?
﮲ What do philosophers of science study?
﮲ What are the common images of science?
﮲ What’s the difference between science and pseudoscience?
Case 1: Fundamental Physics
Hard to understand why it’s a good idea to create a particle that is not even detectable (Higgs
boson)
Philosophical questions:
﮲ What does detecting mean? After all, you have never seen it
﮲ Are these particles a real part of nature or merely useful concepts?
﮲ What about other objects of scientific study
o Biology: genes, species, etc.
o Neuroscience: neurons, proteins, etc
o Economics: preferences, markets, etc.
o Psychology: disorders, traits, etc.
Case 2: Climate Change
Human activities are influencing Earth’s climate. Examples: burning fossil fuels, cattle ranching,
clear-cutting rainforests.
Journalists and politicians on the other side talk of the myth of global warming.
Large conglomerates fund ‘alternative research’
Philosophical questions:
﮲ What is the evidence that entitle people to believe?
﮲ How have climatologists arrived at their consensus?
﮲ How should we draft policies for the future?
﮲ Whose interests should we take into account?
General point
The philosopher of science is not concerned with answering scientific questions.
Not answering scientific questions.
Instead: the concern is answering questions about science.
Some of these questions pertain specific disciplines.
﮲ Philosophy of physics
﮲ Philosophy of biology
﮲ Philosophy of cognitive science
﮲ Etc.
Exemplar of good science: physics.
What can we learn from the way in which people are working within the fields of physics.
Also questions which are ‘general philosophy of science’ questions
, What is science and how is it different from other human activities that claim to give you
knowledge (e.g. astrology)?
Are the natural sciences the unique possible form of knowledge?
What is a good scientific explanation?
How does science progress and change?
History of Modern Science
Up until the 16th century:
Christian interpretation of the Aristotelian world view
The earth is located at the center of the universe
Four elements: earth, air, fire, water; with specific motions
Practical problem:
The calendar needs a reform. The papacy hired Copernicus
Copernicus: we need a better astronomy, put the sun in the middle
17th century: Radical change of world view
Galileo’s new observations suggested that Copernicus was correct
Kepler made the orbits elliptical.
Newton identified mathematical laws for gravity to explain the system workings.
Before Galileo and Bacon
Method: Observe natural motions in ordinary circumstances.
Galileo and Bacon
Discover systematic patterns and express them in mathematical laws
Galileo: the book of nature is ‘written in the language of mathematics’
Method: Experiment
Institutionalization of science
Royal society of London, and similar societies in France and Italy
Standards for presenting and disseminating (verspreiden) results
Conditions under which reports could be trusted
General lessons from the history of science:
1. Science as we know it today was not always the main form of enquiry
2. Science emerged in a particular historical context
Images of sciences
Image of science: a general normative conception of science
Image 1: science is a reliable form accumulating knowledge
Advocates: Bacon, early Royal Society
Goal: observe, generalize and control nature
Image 2: science proceeds with conjectures not merely observation
Advocate: Karl Popper
There conjectures (hypotheses) are never beyond criticism
Image 3: Science aims at a unified complete account of nature
There are objective logical relations
Some findings are objectively well established (e.g., fundamental physics)
Image 4: Science is a human activity and human factors matter
Science is shaped by human interaction
, Scientific choices are affected by researchers’ context (including politics)
Karl Popper – Conjectures and Refutations
Popper’s “Problem of demarcation”
When should a theory be ranked as scientific?
Is there a criterion for the scientific character of a theory?
He wants to distinguish science from pseudoscience
Popper is not interested in questions like:
When is a theory true?
Because, you can never know whether something is true, you can only falsify
When is a theory acceptable?
Theories Popper looks at four purportedly scientific theories:
1. Einstein’s theory of relativity
2. Freuds psycho-analysis
3. Marx’s historical materialism
4. Alder’s individual psychology
There is a difference between 2-4 and 1. What is wrong with 2, 3 and 4.
Again, the issue is not truth.
The issue is explanatory power: 2-4 explain too much
Case 1: a man pushes a child into the water
Psychoanalysis: repression
Individual psychology: feelings of inferiority (prove that he dared)
Case 2: a man saves a drowning child
Psychoanalysis: sublimation
Individual psychology: feelings of inferiority (prove that he is brave)
Contrast between 2-4 with Einstein’s theory
Prediction: Light must be attracted by heavy bodies
Eddington’s observation: a distant star (apparently) close to the sun would seem to be
slightly shifted away from the sun.
Unlike the other theories, Einstein’s gravitational theory is incompatible with certain possible
results of observation.
“The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”
Einstein’s theory passes the test.
What about the other theories? Why do they fail?
﮲ Astrology
﮲ Marx’s historical materialism
﮲ Freud’s psychoanalysis.
﮲ Adler’s personal psychology.
Caveat:
That a theory is not scientific does not imply that it is unimportant. Nonscientific theories can be
refined and become scientific.
Week 2 – Demarcation
Central questions for today
Week 1 – Introduction
Thesis statements on the book and all other readings for every week.
Central questions
﮲ What’s the relation between philosophy and science?
﮲ What do philosophers of science study?
﮲ What are the common images of science?
﮲ What’s the difference between science and pseudoscience?
Case 1: Fundamental Physics
Hard to understand why it’s a good idea to create a particle that is not even detectable (Higgs
boson)
Philosophical questions:
﮲ What does detecting mean? After all, you have never seen it
﮲ Are these particles a real part of nature or merely useful concepts?
﮲ What about other objects of scientific study
o Biology: genes, species, etc.
o Neuroscience: neurons, proteins, etc
o Economics: preferences, markets, etc.
o Psychology: disorders, traits, etc.
Case 2: Climate Change
Human activities are influencing Earth’s climate. Examples: burning fossil fuels, cattle ranching,
clear-cutting rainforests.
Journalists and politicians on the other side talk of the myth of global warming.
Large conglomerates fund ‘alternative research’
Philosophical questions:
﮲ What is the evidence that entitle people to believe?
﮲ How have climatologists arrived at their consensus?
﮲ How should we draft policies for the future?
﮲ Whose interests should we take into account?
General point
The philosopher of science is not concerned with answering scientific questions.
Not answering scientific questions.
Instead: the concern is answering questions about science.
Some of these questions pertain specific disciplines.
﮲ Philosophy of physics
﮲ Philosophy of biology
﮲ Philosophy of cognitive science
﮲ Etc.
Exemplar of good science: physics.
What can we learn from the way in which people are working within the fields of physics.
Also questions which are ‘general philosophy of science’ questions
, What is science and how is it different from other human activities that claim to give you
knowledge (e.g. astrology)?
Are the natural sciences the unique possible form of knowledge?
What is a good scientific explanation?
How does science progress and change?
History of Modern Science
Up until the 16th century:
Christian interpretation of the Aristotelian world view
The earth is located at the center of the universe
Four elements: earth, air, fire, water; with specific motions
Practical problem:
The calendar needs a reform. The papacy hired Copernicus
Copernicus: we need a better astronomy, put the sun in the middle
17th century: Radical change of world view
Galileo’s new observations suggested that Copernicus was correct
Kepler made the orbits elliptical.
Newton identified mathematical laws for gravity to explain the system workings.
Before Galileo and Bacon
Method: Observe natural motions in ordinary circumstances.
Galileo and Bacon
Discover systematic patterns and express them in mathematical laws
Galileo: the book of nature is ‘written in the language of mathematics’
Method: Experiment
Institutionalization of science
Royal society of London, and similar societies in France and Italy
Standards for presenting and disseminating (verspreiden) results
Conditions under which reports could be trusted
General lessons from the history of science:
1. Science as we know it today was not always the main form of enquiry
2. Science emerged in a particular historical context
Images of sciences
Image of science: a general normative conception of science
Image 1: science is a reliable form accumulating knowledge
Advocates: Bacon, early Royal Society
Goal: observe, generalize and control nature
Image 2: science proceeds with conjectures not merely observation
Advocate: Karl Popper
There conjectures (hypotheses) are never beyond criticism
Image 3: Science aims at a unified complete account of nature
There are objective logical relations
Some findings are objectively well established (e.g., fundamental physics)
Image 4: Science is a human activity and human factors matter
Science is shaped by human interaction
, Scientific choices are affected by researchers’ context (including politics)
Karl Popper – Conjectures and Refutations
Popper’s “Problem of demarcation”
When should a theory be ranked as scientific?
Is there a criterion for the scientific character of a theory?
He wants to distinguish science from pseudoscience
Popper is not interested in questions like:
When is a theory true?
Because, you can never know whether something is true, you can only falsify
When is a theory acceptable?
Theories Popper looks at four purportedly scientific theories:
1. Einstein’s theory of relativity
2. Freuds psycho-analysis
3. Marx’s historical materialism
4. Alder’s individual psychology
There is a difference between 2-4 and 1. What is wrong with 2, 3 and 4.
Again, the issue is not truth.
The issue is explanatory power: 2-4 explain too much
Case 1: a man pushes a child into the water
Psychoanalysis: repression
Individual psychology: feelings of inferiority (prove that he dared)
Case 2: a man saves a drowning child
Psychoanalysis: sublimation
Individual psychology: feelings of inferiority (prove that he is brave)
Contrast between 2-4 with Einstein’s theory
Prediction: Light must be attracted by heavy bodies
Eddington’s observation: a distant star (apparently) close to the sun would seem to be
slightly shifted away from the sun.
Unlike the other theories, Einstein’s gravitational theory is incompatible with certain possible
results of observation.
“The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”
Einstein’s theory passes the test.
What about the other theories? Why do they fail?
﮲ Astrology
﮲ Marx’s historical materialism
﮲ Freud’s psychoanalysis.
﮲ Adler’s personal psychology.
Caveat:
That a theory is not scientific does not imply that it is unimportant. Nonscientific theories can be
refined and become scientific.
Week 2 – Demarcation
Central questions for today
