Philosophy of Humanities 1: Area Studies
Lecture notes..........................................................................................................................................2
Lecture 1 03/02/2020 Introduction....................................................................................................2
Lecture 2 10/02/2020 The humanities, the social sciences, law.........................................................8
Lecture 3(4) 24/02/2020 Representation, interpretation, discourse, narrativity.............................12
Lecture 5 02/03/2020 Post-culturalism and postmodernism...........................................................16
Lecture 6/7 Recap.............................................................................................................................19
Seminar notes.......................................................................................................................................24
Seminar 1 Popper & Kuhn 05/02/2020.............................................................................................24
Seminar 2 Humboldt & McCloskey 12/02/2020...............................................................................26
Seminar 3 Benjamin & Adorno 19/02/2020.....................................................................................27
Seminar 4 Geertz & Skinner 26/02/2020..........................................................................................28
Seminar 5 Rorty & Foucault 04/03/2020..........................................................................................29
Seminar 6 Said & Eisenstadt 11/03/2020.........................................................................................31
Book Summary.....................................................................................................................................34
Chapter 3 Logical Empiricism and Critical Rationalism.....................................................................34
Chapter 4 Historicising the Philosophy of Science............................................................................39
Chapter 5 The Birth of the Modern Humanities...............................................................................42
Chapter 6 Developing New Disciplines.............................................................................................45
Chapter 7 Between Hermeneutics and the Natural Sciences: In Search of a Method......................48
Chapter 8 Critical Theory..................................................................................................................51
Chapter 9 Positivism and Structuralism............................................................................................55
Chapter 11 Critique of Modernity.....................................................................................................57
Chapter 13 Post colonialism.............................................................................................................60
Reader Summaries...............................................................................................................................63
Week 1 Popper & Kuhn....................................................................................................................63
Popper..........................................................................................................................................63
Kuhn.............................................................................................................................................81
Week 2 Humboldt & McCloskey.......................................................................................................82
Humboldt......................................................................................................................................82
McCloskey.....................................................................................................................................83
Week 3 Benjamin & Adorno.............................................................................................................83
Benjamin.......................................................................................................................................83
1
, Adorno..........................................................................................................................................84
Week 4 Geertz & Skinner..................................................................................................................85
Geertz...........................................................................................................................................85
Skinner..........................................................................................................................................86
Week 5 Rorty & Foucault..................................................................................................................86
Rorty............................................................................................................................................87
Foucault........................................................................................................................................88
Week 6 Said & Eisenstadt.................................................................................................................88
Said...............................................................................................................................................89
Eisenstadt.....................................................................................................................................89
Lecture notes
Lecture 1 03/02/2020 Introduction
2
,Initial focus on natural sciences because of critical thinking – contrastive thinking. What makes for good science
and distinguishes from mere opinion?
Course follows structure of the book.
1. General insights from philosophy of science (lecture 1)
2. Rise of development of humanities (lecture 2 & 4)
3. Styles and current in 20th century humanities (lecture 3 & 5)
4. Current themes in contemporary humanities (lecture 5 & 6)
What is philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities?
Tasks of philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities
Two related key issues in philosophy of science and humanities:
Demarcation problem
Relation theory and reality
In the book, there is a tripartite division (p. 16, 24)
Philosophy of natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, pathology, anatomy)
o Truth
Philosophy of social sciences (economy, law, jurisprudence, political science, psychology)
Philosophy of humanities (history, anthropology, classics, linguistics, literature, philosophy)
o Interpretation
If you want to understand philosophy of science, it can be general or a specific focus.
Descriptive and normative philosophy (chapter 1): both philosophy of science and humanities have a double
task, viz. a descriptive task and a normative task (pp. 16-18 Leezenberg).
Descriptive: description of scientific practices and products, e.g. how do scientists connect theory to
reality?; explicating
Normative: normative assessment of scientific practices and products, e.g. how should scientists
connect theory to reality/what distinguishes (demarcate) science from pseudoscience and opinion?;
logical thinking, not what is happening, but what should be happening.
Popper – demarcates.
Science vs. humanities – humanities is a philosophy of the human sciences, there is differences in sciences
(applied, natural, social, etc.)
Instrumental approach: book suggests that you can use instruments to assess a piece of scientific practice, not
just explicate it but also take normative stats. A criticial reflection on science/humanities and
scientific/humanities research.
Critical science consumers
Critical thinking
Use of philosophical insights and frameworks as instruments for reflection
Demarcation
Chapter 3, what is the problem of demarcation? (p. 91)
What distinguishes good science from pseudoscience (facts from mere opinions?)
Science vs. pseudoscience
Episteme vs. doxa (pp. 19-20)
o Post-truth area
Fake news
3
, Climate change denial
Flat earthers
You need relevant criteria to distinguish facts from opinion. You should be able to test (methodology) and assess
the truth or falsity of a specific scientific proposition.
Science: an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions
about the world
Pseudoscience: a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific but lacks the valid scientific
methodology or supporting evidence.
Three different answers:
Logical empiricism
o Verifiability: claim should be testable using sensory experience (p. 77)
Critical rationalism
o Falsifiability: claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible observation (p.
91)
Kuhn’s philosophy of science
o Normal science is governed by a paradigm (p. 118)
Verification, chapter 3.
Logical empiricism: endorsed a verification criterion of meaning (p. 77)
Historical context
At the turn of the 20th century, deeply impressed by scientific advances (Einstein), natural sciences flourished.
Science was the right model for philosophy. The main aim of logical empiricism was the analysis of the nature,
success, and growth of scientific knowledge. Logical reconstructions of scientific results (theories, explanation,
context of discovery vs. context of justification)
For Popper/logical empiricists it didn’t matter at all what the reasons were/context were that led the scientists to
propose a certain theory, only the justification and evidence for that theory was the focus. It matters if you can
test the proposition, not how you came up with it.
- At the turn of the 20th century natural sciences flourished (e.g. Einstein’s relativity theory)
- Science as the right model for philosophy
- Main aim logical empiricism: analysis of the nature, success and growth of scientific knowledge
- Logical reconstructions of scientific results (theories, explanations)
o Context of discovery vs. context of justification)
- Vienna ‘’reflective epicentre’’
All set within a context of justification. Logical empiricists came up with verifiability theory of meaning:
Verifiability theory of meaning
o Knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing how to verify it by means of observation
Verifiability = testability
Strong empiricist principle: experience is the only source of meaning
Scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning
Most traditional philosophy lacks meaning!
It does not entail that a scientific claim has to be true, it can be false and still be scientific when its falsity can be
proven with sensory experience (observation)
Verifiability is not about the truth necessarily, but that you can use your senses whether or not a proposition is
true or false. (do not equate it with truth!)
Heidegger: ‘’Where do we seek the Nothing’’ it appears as a statement of external reality, but is in fact
meaningless – you cannot use your senses to assess its truth or falsity (according to logical empiricists)
4
Lecture notes..........................................................................................................................................2
Lecture 1 03/02/2020 Introduction....................................................................................................2
Lecture 2 10/02/2020 The humanities, the social sciences, law.........................................................8
Lecture 3(4) 24/02/2020 Representation, interpretation, discourse, narrativity.............................12
Lecture 5 02/03/2020 Post-culturalism and postmodernism...........................................................16
Lecture 6/7 Recap.............................................................................................................................19
Seminar notes.......................................................................................................................................24
Seminar 1 Popper & Kuhn 05/02/2020.............................................................................................24
Seminar 2 Humboldt & McCloskey 12/02/2020...............................................................................26
Seminar 3 Benjamin & Adorno 19/02/2020.....................................................................................27
Seminar 4 Geertz & Skinner 26/02/2020..........................................................................................28
Seminar 5 Rorty & Foucault 04/03/2020..........................................................................................29
Seminar 6 Said & Eisenstadt 11/03/2020.........................................................................................31
Book Summary.....................................................................................................................................34
Chapter 3 Logical Empiricism and Critical Rationalism.....................................................................34
Chapter 4 Historicising the Philosophy of Science............................................................................39
Chapter 5 The Birth of the Modern Humanities...............................................................................42
Chapter 6 Developing New Disciplines.............................................................................................45
Chapter 7 Between Hermeneutics and the Natural Sciences: In Search of a Method......................48
Chapter 8 Critical Theory..................................................................................................................51
Chapter 9 Positivism and Structuralism............................................................................................55
Chapter 11 Critique of Modernity.....................................................................................................57
Chapter 13 Post colonialism.............................................................................................................60
Reader Summaries...............................................................................................................................63
Week 1 Popper & Kuhn....................................................................................................................63
Popper..........................................................................................................................................63
Kuhn.............................................................................................................................................81
Week 2 Humboldt & McCloskey.......................................................................................................82
Humboldt......................................................................................................................................82
McCloskey.....................................................................................................................................83
Week 3 Benjamin & Adorno.............................................................................................................83
Benjamin.......................................................................................................................................83
1
, Adorno..........................................................................................................................................84
Week 4 Geertz & Skinner..................................................................................................................85
Geertz...........................................................................................................................................85
Skinner..........................................................................................................................................86
Week 5 Rorty & Foucault..................................................................................................................86
Rorty............................................................................................................................................87
Foucault........................................................................................................................................88
Week 6 Said & Eisenstadt.................................................................................................................88
Said...............................................................................................................................................89
Eisenstadt.....................................................................................................................................89
Lecture notes
Lecture 1 03/02/2020 Introduction
2
,Initial focus on natural sciences because of critical thinking – contrastive thinking. What makes for good science
and distinguishes from mere opinion?
Course follows structure of the book.
1. General insights from philosophy of science (lecture 1)
2. Rise of development of humanities (lecture 2 & 4)
3. Styles and current in 20th century humanities (lecture 3 & 5)
4. Current themes in contemporary humanities (lecture 5 & 6)
What is philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities?
Tasks of philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities
Two related key issues in philosophy of science and humanities:
Demarcation problem
Relation theory and reality
In the book, there is a tripartite division (p. 16, 24)
Philosophy of natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, pathology, anatomy)
o Truth
Philosophy of social sciences (economy, law, jurisprudence, political science, psychology)
Philosophy of humanities (history, anthropology, classics, linguistics, literature, philosophy)
o Interpretation
If you want to understand philosophy of science, it can be general or a specific focus.
Descriptive and normative philosophy (chapter 1): both philosophy of science and humanities have a double
task, viz. a descriptive task and a normative task (pp. 16-18 Leezenberg).
Descriptive: description of scientific practices and products, e.g. how do scientists connect theory to
reality?; explicating
Normative: normative assessment of scientific practices and products, e.g. how should scientists
connect theory to reality/what distinguishes (demarcate) science from pseudoscience and opinion?;
logical thinking, not what is happening, but what should be happening.
Popper – demarcates.
Science vs. humanities – humanities is a philosophy of the human sciences, there is differences in sciences
(applied, natural, social, etc.)
Instrumental approach: book suggests that you can use instruments to assess a piece of scientific practice, not
just explicate it but also take normative stats. A criticial reflection on science/humanities and
scientific/humanities research.
Critical science consumers
Critical thinking
Use of philosophical insights and frameworks as instruments for reflection
Demarcation
Chapter 3, what is the problem of demarcation? (p. 91)
What distinguishes good science from pseudoscience (facts from mere opinions?)
Science vs. pseudoscience
Episteme vs. doxa (pp. 19-20)
o Post-truth area
Fake news
3
, Climate change denial
Flat earthers
You need relevant criteria to distinguish facts from opinion. You should be able to test (methodology) and assess
the truth or falsity of a specific scientific proposition.
Science: an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions
about the world
Pseudoscience: a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific but lacks the valid scientific
methodology or supporting evidence.
Three different answers:
Logical empiricism
o Verifiability: claim should be testable using sensory experience (p. 77)
Critical rationalism
o Falsifiability: claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible observation (p.
91)
Kuhn’s philosophy of science
o Normal science is governed by a paradigm (p. 118)
Verification, chapter 3.
Logical empiricism: endorsed a verification criterion of meaning (p. 77)
Historical context
At the turn of the 20th century, deeply impressed by scientific advances (Einstein), natural sciences flourished.
Science was the right model for philosophy. The main aim of logical empiricism was the analysis of the nature,
success, and growth of scientific knowledge. Logical reconstructions of scientific results (theories, explanation,
context of discovery vs. context of justification)
For Popper/logical empiricists it didn’t matter at all what the reasons were/context were that led the scientists to
propose a certain theory, only the justification and evidence for that theory was the focus. It matters if you can
test the proposition, not how you came up with it.
- At the turn of the 20th century natural sciences flourished (e.g. Einstein’s relativity theory)
- Science as the right model for philosophy
- Main aim logical empiricism: analysis of the nature, success and growth of scientific knowledge
- Logical reconstructions of scientific results (theories, explanations)
o Context of discovery vs. context of justification)
- Vienna ‘’reflective epicentre’’
All set within a context of justification. Logical empiricists came up with verifiability theory of meaning:
Verifiability theory of meaning
o Knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing how to verify it by means of observation
Verifiability = testability
Strong empiricist principle: experience is the only source of meaning
Scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning
Most traditional philosophy lacks meaning!
It does not entail that a scientific claim has to be true, it can be false and still be scientific when its falsity can be
proven with sensory experience (observation)
Verifiability is not about the truth necessarily, but that you can use your senses whether or not a proposition is
true or false. (do not equate it with truth!)
Heidegger: ‘’Where do we seek the Nothing’’ it appears as a statement of external reality, but is in fact
meaningless – you cannot use your senses to assess its truth or falsity (according to logical empiricists)
4
