The Scientific Revolution
Galileo Galilei
How was knowledge created?
● Heliocentric Theory
● Nicolaus Copernicus -> Galileo defends his theory
● Why is Galileo talking about the book?
○ it is because of the limitations of the human brain that people can not
comprehend it > he is not blaming scriptures/god/church
● ‘Eppur si muove’ -> none the less it moves (=the earth)
○ who decides what is the absolute truth?
○ combination of science and systems of power (church for example)
○ books: ways of making sure a book is published ‘safely’ without going against
the concepts of the church
● His text is full of rhetorical metaphors because he had to avoid being condemned by
the church
Hume
Philosophy of science in the 20th century
● a priori > without thinking, just a fact
● a posteriori > experience
● the sun arising every day > we are used to it but can’t make sure it keeps happening
> example for a priori and a posteriori
Induction and the problem of induction
● example of food > we know what food tastes like but we don’t know what it is
composed of and the vitamines it gives us
● white swans asume if you only see white swans you can claim that only white ones
exist - but this is a problem
● CAUSE and EFFECT
○ ‘if you put a block of ice over a candle it melts’ > if you put your finger though,
you’ll burn and it hurts
■ this statement is possible because of experience but depends on the
sense of an individual, so for some people the fire will hurt more, for
some less, for some it wont even hurt at all
■ logically > because for most people it hurts, I won’t do it again but
another individual may feel different.
■ so this can’t be applied therefore to everyone
● Doubt: fundamentally stop and ask questions
○ connection between practice and doubt?
○ a priori relies on a lot of things
○ progress (flow, things, getting better) > doubt (pauses that, or even goes
back)
, ● Knowledge should be based on real existing facts > but one can’t see everything =
example of the food (bread)
● scepticism > putting question mark to topic of doubt and doubting a certainty > there
are different levels of scepticism.
● Hume doesn’t believe in progress but that everything is based a prior or on
experience and a linear progress wouldn’t work for Hume.
Karl Popper
● Logical Positivism: Verifiability - claim should be testable using sensory experience.
● Historical Context: Turn of 20th century Vienna Circle - much of the philosophical
past was only speculation - tried to set philosophy on firmer foundation and
clarification. A sense is only meaningful if it can empirically be verified. Held all
metaphysical sentences to be meaningless (example “does god exist”) -
● The principle of verification (can be seen as an echo of the scientific revolutions
happening at that time, in history). Knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing
how to verify it by means of observation. Experience is the only source of meaning
and most traditional philosophy lacks meaning.
● Reductionism - all statements should be simple and pure at their core, reducible.
Some problems of verifiability:
● The criterion itself is not verifiable
● The neutral experience assumption is false:
○ Assumption is theory-laden
○ Observation reports can’t be used to decide on truth or falsity of a preposition
● The problem of induction
○ Universal laws resist verification (temporary) and confirmation
○ Karl Popper says that confirmation is impossible because laws could be
refuted by future observations
● Critical rationalism: Falsifiability - It’s developed by Karl Popper during the middle of
the 20th century. Popper's approach is based on the naturalistic idea that society has
developed through a process of solving problems using trial and error. The natural
and social sciences have been born out of such problem solving and progressed by
subjecting potential theories to vigorous testing and criticism. Falsified theories are
rejected. Popper calls for a society which is conducive to such problem solving, a
society which permits bold theorizing followed by unfettered criticism, a society in
which there is a genuine possibility of change in the light of criticism: an open society.
Problems with falsifiability:
● Scientists don’t abandon their theory after one falsification
● Pseudo-sciences can make falsification as well
● Probabilistic claims
All statements are either universal or singular → Universal: “all swans are white”, singular:
“There is at least one black swan.”
, According to Popper theories must survive a test consisting of the following steps:
corroboration, basic sentences (singular statements or premise), which act as potential
falsifiers, they contradict or support and verisimilitude (similarities to the truth)
Hypothetico-deductive model
Instead of proving theories wrong, they try to see them as the truth.
E(xplanadum): Singular statement - Ice melts
T(heory): Theory or hypothesis - Ice melts when the temperature rises above 0 degrees
Celsius
I(nitial)C(ondition): The temperature is 10 degrees Celsius
Thomas Kuhn
● Another aim to capture the growth of scientific knowledge
● Idea that science is critical is most of the time an illusion! Only at specific moments in
history that science is critical!
● Nature of gaining knowledge through falsification is NOT true.
● For Kuhn, observation is not universal. Therefore observation and experience are
subjective. However for Hume, statements are based on observation.
Kuhn’s phases of sciences (How the scientific process works composed on mainly 4
stages)
Pre-paradigmatic phase
Every science starts here and happens only once and is the phase were there are no shared
concepts or methods (phase before there is a paradigm). Individual scientists will do different
things and have different ideas and have no shared technical language. Once a set of
scientists fall in line behind a single set of ideas, that is when we have a paradigm and move
from the pre-paradigmatic phase to the phase of normal science. They are no longer critical
about this one idea.
Galileo Galilei
How was knowledge created?
● Heliocentric Theory
● Nicolaus Copernicus -> Galileo defends his theory
● Why is Galileo talking about the book?
○ it is because of the limitations of the human brain that people can not
comprehend it > he is not blaming scriptures/god/church
● ‘Eppur si muove’ -> none the less it moves (=the earth)
○ who decides what is the absolute truth?
○ combination of science and systems of power (church for example)
○ books: ways of making sure a book is published ‘safely’ without going against
the concepts of the church
● His text is full of rhetorical metaphors because he had to avoid being condemned by
the church
Hume
Philosophy of science in the 20th century
● a priori > without thinking, just a fact
● a posteriori > experience
● the sun arising every day > we are used to it but can’t make sure it keeps happening
> example for a priori and a posteriori
Induction and the problem of induction
● example of food > we know what food tastes like but we don’t know what it is
composed of and the vitamines it gives us
● white swans asume if you only see white swans you can claim that only white ones
exist - but this is a problem
● CAUSE and EFFECT
○ ‘if you put a block of ice over a candle it melts’ > if you put your finger though,
you’ll burn and it hurts
■ this statement is possible because of experience but depends on the
sense of an individual, so for some people the fire will hurt more, for
some less, for some it wont even hurt at all
■ logically > because for most people it hurts, I won’t do it again but
another individual may feel different.
■ so this can’t be applied therefore to everyone
● Doubt: fundamentally stop and ask questions
○ connection between practice and doubt?
○ a priori relies on a lot of things
○ progress (flow, things, getting better) > doubt (pauses that, or even goes
back)
, ● Knowledge should be based on real existing facts > but one can’t see everything =
example of the food (bread)
● scepticism > putting question mark to topic of doubt and doubting a certainty > there
are different levels of scepticism.
● Hume doesn’t believe in progress but that everything is based a prior or on
experience and a linear progress wouldn’t work for Hume.
Karl Popper
● Logical Positivism: Verifiability - claim should be testable using sensory experience.
● Historical Context: Turn of 20th century Vienna Circle - much of the philosophical
past was only speculation - tried to set philosophy on firmer foundation and
clarification. A sense is only meaningful if it can empirically be verified. Held all
metaphysical sentences to be meaningless (example “does god exist”) -
● The principle of verification (can be seen as an echo of the scientific revolutions
happening at that time, in history). Knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing
how to verify it by means of observation. Experience is the only source of meaning
and most traditional philosophy lacks meaning.
● Reductionism - all statements should be simple and pure at their core, reducible.
Some problems of verifiability:
● The criterion itself is not verifiable
● The neutral experience assumption is false:
○ Assumption is theory-laden
○ Observation reports can’t be used to decide on truth or falsity of a preposition
● The problem of induction
○ Universal laws resist verification (temporary) and confirmation
○ Karl Popper says that confirmation is impossible because laws could be
refuted by future observations
● Critical rationalism: Falsifiability - It’s developed by Karl Popper during the middle of
the 20th century. Popper's approach is based on the naturalistic idea that society has
developed through a process of solving problems using trial and error. The natural
and social sciences have been born out of such problem solving and progressed by
subjecting potential theories to vigorous testing and criticism. Falsified theories are
rejected. Popper calls for a society which is conducive to such problem solving, a
society which permits bold theorizing followed by unfettered criticism, a society in
which there is a genuine possibility of change in the light of criticism: an open society.
Problems with falsifiability:
● Scientists don’t abandon their theory after one falsification
● Pseudo-sciences can make falsification as well
● Probabilistic claims
All statements are either universal or singular → Universal: “all swans are white”, singular:
“There is at least one black swan.”
, According to Popper theories must survive a test consisting of the following steps:
corroboration, basic sentences (singular statements or premise), which act as potential
falsifiers, they contradict or support and verisimilitude (similarities to the truth)
Hypothetico-deductive model
Instead of proving theories wrong, they try to see them as the truth.
E(xplanadum): Singular statement - Ice melts
T(heory): Theory or hypothesis - Ice melts when the temperature rises above 0 degrees
Celsius
I(nitial)C(ondition): The temperature is 10 degrees Celsius
Thomas Kuhn
● Another aim to capture the growth of scientific knowledge
● Idea that science is critical is most of the time an illusion! Only at specific moments in
history that science is critical!
● Nature of gaining knowledge through falsification is NOT true.
● For Kuhn, observation is not universal. Therefore observation and experience are
subjective. However for Hume, statements are based on observation.
Kuhn’s phases of sciences (How the scientific process works composed on mainly 4
stages)
Pre-paradigmatic phase
Every science starts here and happens only once and is the phase were there are no shared
concepts or methods (phase before there is a paradigm). Individual scientists will do different
things and have different ideas and have no shared technical language. Once a set of
scientists fall in line behind a single set of ideas, that is when we have a paradigm and move
from the pre-paradigmatic phase to the phase of normal science. They are no longer critical
about this one idea.
