1. What is science?
We know that for example biology and physics are sciences, but what is it that makes something a
science? Science seems to want to understand, explain and predict. But this is not enough, because
this does not exclude e.g. religion or astrology from being a science. What truly distinguishes science
may have to do with the methods used (like experimentation and observation), and the fact that a
general theory is sought.
What are the origins of modern science?
Between 1500 and 1750 there was the scientific revolution in Europe. In the periods before that, the
dominant worldview was Aristotelianism, based on Aristotle's ideas.
The Copernican revolution was the first step in developing the modern scientific worldview.
Copernicus started to attack the geocentric model of the universe (stationary earth with the planets
and sun in orbit around it), widely believed then, in 1542. Copernicus came up with the heliocentric
model and said the sun was the centre, and the planets and the Earth were in orbit around it.
Indirectly, Copernicanism led to the development of physics, through Kepler's and Galileo's work.
Kepler found that the planets do not move in circular orbits, but in ellipses. This was his first law of
planetary motion, and his second and third ones were about the speed. Galileo was one of the first
users of a telescope and discovered a lot with it, helping to convert the view from Aristotelianism to
Copernicanism.
Galileo also came up with the idea that all freely falling things will fall at the same rate, no matter the
weight (but only in a vacuum, because air resistance plays a part). So he was against the Aristotelian
theory that heavier things fall faster. He came up with the law of free fall, saying freely falling things
accelerate uniformly. He is often viewed as the first modern physicist, also being the first one to start
using mathematical language to describe physical reality, and being important
in emphasizing experimental testing.
Descartes came up with a new mechanical philosophy, saying the world consists of inert particles of
matter interacting with each other. He believed the laws governing this motion were the key
to understanding the universe's structure. This became the dominant scientific vision in the late 17th
century, defeating Aristotelianism.
The scientific revolution then climaxed in Isaac Newton's precise work. He improved Descartes' work
and came up with a dynamical, mechanical theory of great power, which was based around his three
laws of motion and his principle of universal gravitation, so, gravity. Newton also invented the
mathematical technique of calculus. Scientific confidence grew due to Newtons work, which was
believed to basically show how nature works.
In the early 20th century, this confidence was shattered, due to two new developments: relativity
theory and quantum mechanics. Relativity theory, by Einstein, showed that Newton's ideas do not
work when applied to very massive objects, or objects moving at very high speed. Quantum
mechanics show that Newton's ideas do not work when applied on a very small scale, to subatomic
particles. These two theories conflict with common sense and with people's understanding, and they
caused a sort of confusion and turn in physics.
In biology, the big event is Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. Another important
revolution is the emergence of molecular biology and genetics, which is not yet complete. It started
with the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick, and ultimately this revolution transformed our
, understanding of heredity and development, but there are probably still many exciting developments
to come in this field.
There are many new scientific disciplines like computer science and artificial intelligence. Moreover,
cognitive science and neuroscience have developed greatly. Furthermore, social sciences like
economics and sociology flourished in the 20th century, but some say they are still behind the
natural sciences.
What is philosophy of science?
The main task in philosophy of science is to analyse the enquiry methods used in science.
Philosophers want to question assumptions that scientists sometimes take for granted. However,
some scientists, like Newton and Einstein, were also busy with philosophy. Modern scientists do not
really seem interested, probably due to the increased specialised nature of science, and the
increased division between sciences and humanities.
What’s the difference between science and pseudo-science?
Popper, a 20th-century philosopher of science, thought the fundamental feature of science
is falsifiability: a scientific theory should make predictions which are capable of being tested, and if
they turn out to be wrong, the theory is falsified. If this criterium is not satisfied, it is pseudo-science,
according to Popper. Popper believed Freud's psychoanalytic theory was pseudo-science, because
this theory could go with all results and never really turn out to be false. He also thought the same of
Marx's theory of history, which claimed that in industrialized societies, capitalism would give way to
socialism and then to communism. But when this didn't happen, Marxists would come up with some
new explanation for it and still believe in their theory, so Popper viewed it as pseudo-science.
Einstein's general relativity theory (about starlight being deflected by the sun) was true science
according to Popper, since it makes a very definite prediction which can be tested. If it had turned
out to be false, the theory would have been falsified.
Many philosophers view Popper's criterion as too simplistic and not being accurate in all cases: some
established scientists also come up with new explanations to stand by their theory, and this
sometimes leads to scientific improvement.
So does science have an essential feature that makes it science? It's difficult, because science is so
heterogenous.
We know that for example biology and physics are sciences, but what is it that makes something a
science? Science seems to want to understand, explain and predict. But this is not enough, because
this does not exclude e.g. religion or astrology from being a science. What truly distinguishes science
may have to do with the methods used (like experimentation and observation), and the fact that a
general theory is sought.
What are the origins of modern science?
Between 1500 and 1750 there was the scientific revolution in Europe. In the periods before that, the
dominant worldview was Aristotelianism, based on Aristotle's ideas.
The Copernican revolution was the first step in developing the modern scientific worldview.
Copernicus started to attack the geocentric model of the universe (stationary earth with the planets
and sun in orbit around it), widely believed then, in 1542. Copernicus came up with the heliocentric
model and said the sun was the centre, and the planets and the Earth were in orbit around it.
Indirectly, Copernicanism led to the development of physics, through Kepler's and Galileo's work.
Kepler found that the planets do not move in circular orbits, but in ellipses. This was his first law of
planetary motion, and his second and third ones were about the speed. Galileo was one of the first
users of a telescope and discovered a lot with it, helping to convert the view from Aristotelianism to
Copernicanism.
Galileo also came up with the idea that all freely falling things will fall at the same rate, no matter the
weight (but only in a vacuum, because air resistance plays a part). So he was against the Aristotelian
theory that heavier things fall faster. He came up with the law of free fall, saying freely falling things
accelerate uniformly. He is often viewed as the first modern physicist, also being the first one to start
using mathematical language to describe physical reality, and being important
in emphasizing experimental testing.
Descartes came up with a new mechanical philosophy, saying the world consists of inert particles of
matter interacting with each other. He believed the laws governing this motion were the key
to understanding the universe's structure. This became the dominant scientific vision in the late 17th
century, defeating Aristotelianism.
The scientific revolution then climaxed in Isaac Newton's precise work. He improved Descartes' work
and came up with a dynamical, mechanical theory of great power, which was based around his three
laws of motion and his principle of universal gravitation, so, gravity. Newton also invented the
mathematical technique of calculus. Scientific confidence grew due to Newtons work, which was
believed to basically show how nature works.
In the early 20th century, this confidence was shattered, due to two new developments: relativity
theory and quantum mechanics. Relativity theory, by Einstein, showed that Newton's ideas do not
work when applied to very massive objects, or objects moving at very high speed. Quantum
mechanics show that Newton's ideas do not work when applied on a very small scale, to subatomic
particles. These two theories conflict with common sense and with people's understanding, and they
caused a sort of confusion and turn in physics.
In biology, the big event is Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. Another important
revolution is the emergence of molecular biology and genetics, which is not yet complete. It started
with the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick, and ultimately this revolution transformed our
, understanding of heredity and development, but there are probably still many exciting developments
to come in this field.
There are many new scientific disciplines like computer science and artificial intelligence. Moreover,
cognitive science and neuroscience have developed greatly. Furthermore, social sciences like
economics and sociology flourished in the 20th century, but some say they are still behind the
natural sciences.
What is philosophy of science?
The main task in philosophy of science is to analyse the enquiry methods used in science.
Philosophers want to question assumptions that scientists sometimes take for granted. However,
some scientists, like Newton and Einstein, were also busy with philosophy. Modern scientists do not
really seem interested, probably due to the increased specialised nature of science, and the
increased division between sciences and humanities.
What’s the difference between science and pseudo-science?
Popper, a 20th-century philosopher of science, thought the fundamental feature of science
is falsifiability: a scientific theory should make predictions which are capable of being tested, and if
they turn out to be wrong, the theory is falsified. If this criterium is not satisfied, it is pseudo-science,
according to Popper. Popper believed Freud's psychoanalytic theory was pseudo-science, because
this theory could go with all results and never really turn out to be false. He also thought the same of
Marx's theory of history, which claimed that in industrialized societies, capitalism would give way to
socialism and then to communism. But when this didn't happen, Marxists would come up with some
new explanation for it and still believe in their theory, so Popper viewed it as pseudo-science.
Einstein's general relativity theory (about starlight being deflected by the sun) was true science
according to Popper, since it makes a very definite prediction which can be tested. If it had turned
out to be false, the theory would have been falsified.
Many philosophers view Popper's criterion as too simplistic and not being accurate in all cases: some
established scientists also come up with new explanations to stand by their theory, and this
sometimes leads to scientific improvement.
So does science have an essential feature that makes it science? It's difficult, because science is so
heterogenous.
